House of Commons
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
1. What progress he has made on his policy to create a northern powerhouse for the UK economy.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on his policy to create a northern powerhouse for the UK economy.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
9. What progress he has made on his policy to create a northern powerhouse for the UK economy.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
10. What progress he has made on his policy to create a northern powerhouse for the UK economy.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
13. What progress he has made on his policy to create a northern powerhouse for the UK economy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
In July I set out my plan to build a northern powerhouse to connect the great cities of the north with the counties that surround them—and, of course, north Wales—by investing in transport science, and by devolving powers from Westminster to elected city mayors. We now have plans for High Speed 3 and for major new science investment. Yesterday I signed an historic agreement with the civic leaders of Greater Manchester to create the first directly elected metro-wide mayor outside London, with powers over transport, economic development and policing. I hope that Manchester will be the first of many cities to take advantage of the greater devolution of powers. Today I have opened my door to discussions with any metropolitan authority that wants to adopt a new model of governance. All that is part of our ambition to reduce the decades-old gap between north and south, which is central to our long-term economic plan.
Mr Osborne
As a Cheshire Member of Parliament, I know that the north Wales economy is closely connected with the economy of the north-west of England. We have already committed ourselves to reopening the Halton curve, re-establishing a regular direct rail link between north Wales and Liverpool for the first time since the 1970s. That is something that my right hon. Friend asked me to do, and campaigned for. Moreover, High Speed 2 gives us the potential of a station at Crewe, which will greatly increase capacity for journeys to north Wales and reduce journey times. We are ready to listen to further ideas for ensuring that prosperity is experienced in north Wales as well.
Graham Evans
For 13 years Labour neglected jobs and growth in the north, including Weaver Vale, thus creating an economy that was dangerously unbalanced. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only the Conservative party, with its long-term economic plan, that will deliver job security for the whole United Kingdom, not just the south?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A record number of people are now employed in the north of England, but the gap between north and south grew under those 13 years of Labour government. If the House wants one example of a project that was waiting to be completed but was entirely neglected by the Labour Government, it is the Mersey Gateway bridge, which this Government are now building and to which they are committed—and, thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, there will be no tolls for local residents.
Paul Maynard
I welcome the Chancellor’s obvious commitment to the northern economy. Does he agree that a commitment to exports will be at the heart of its regeneration, and will he join me in praising Victrex, a company in my constituency, which exports 97% of what it produces? Is that not what will drive a northern renaissance?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend, who is a powerful champion of the businesses in his constituency which employ local people, has told me about Victrex and its exporting success. That success is being replicated by other manufacturers in the north of England which are increasing their exports. The energy revolution in the Fylde area and on the Blackpool coast is creating the potential for a national college to develop the engineering and other skills that will be required. My hon. Friend has made a strong bid for that college to be in his constituency, and I am listening very carefully to the case that he is making.
Andrew Stephenson
I welcomed what my right hon. Friend said when he was in Manchester yesterday. However, a northern powerhouse must not just be about our biggest cities. In Pendle we have landmark regeneration projects such as the £30 million redevelopment of Brierfield Mill, which is in need of my right hon. Friend’s support. Will he tell me what benefits the northern powerhouse will bring to my constituents, and how his investments in transport and regeneration will help them?
Mr Osborne
Crucial to the vision of the northern powerhouse is not just supporting the great cities of the north, but ensuring that they are connected with the towns and counties surrounding those cities. We are investing hugely to improve transport links in Lancashire. My hon. Friend, who is such a champion of his constituency, has raised with me the Brierfield Mill site, which is now called Northlight. We are taking a close look at what we can do to redevelop the area and bring more jobs to his constituency, and that is due to his campaigning efforts.
John Stevenson
The idea of a northern powerhouse is welcome, as is the introduction of an elected mayor, which I am sure will provide real leadership. However, it is vital for smaller places such as Carlisle to benefit as well, which will mean ensuring that the next generation has the right skills to enable local businesses to succeed and prosper. How will the Chancellor ensure that that happens?
Mr Osborne
Thanks in part to the efforts of my hon. Friend and the support he has given to investment in Carlisle, we have seen a 34% fall in the unemployment claimant count in Carlisle in the last year alone. We are also devolving more responsibility for setting the skills agenda to local businesses, so we can have skills that are specific to the Carlisle area. I am always happy to talk to my hon. Friend and to meet people he would bring to see me, to see what more we can do to make sure that Carlisle is part of the strong economic revival of the north of England.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Chancellor opened the door for other metropolitan areas to go down the route of the northern powerhouse. Has he given any consideration to what he regards to be an optimum size for those units? In the west midlands, would that be a Greater Birmingham and black country metropolitan area or an entire west midlands metropolitan area?
Mr Osborne
I do not think any one area is the same as any other area. There is a specific model for Greater Manchester, and of course the Greater Manchester councils had worked well together as a combined authority. Clearly Birmingham city council is much larger than Manchester city council alone, so I would like to have a conversation with the hon. Lady, and with Albert Bore and other civic leaders in Birmingham, about whether we can move to a mayoral model, perhaps just in the city. That is a discussion to be had with local people, however.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his organisational brilliance by peppering us with all these planted questions on this subject, but I tell him, as the co-chair of the Yorkshire group of MPs, that we are a bit canny in Yorkshire; we are a bit worried about this northern powerhouse. We agree with it and support it, but it is a bit close to the general election. Where has he been for four and a half years, and where is the money coming from? We have not seen any resources for it.
Mr Osborne
We have already made investments over the last four years in things such as the northern hub and the electrification of the trans-Pennine railway, which of course will have helped the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I welcome his support for the northern powerhouse. This agreement with Greater Manchester was struck with Labour leaders of Manchester councils as well as the Conservative leader of Trafford and the Liberal Democrat leader of Stockport. I want to work across party divides with local Labour civic leaders and local Labour MPs to see what we can do for Huddersfield and other towns in the north of England so that they are connected to the northern powerhouse.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Can we see the colour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s money? How much is being allocated for so-called HS3, and has he ring-fenced the amount of funding for north Wales?
Mr Osborne
We will have developed and costed plans for HS3 from—[Interruption.] There was no proposal for HS3 from the Labour party for 13 years in government and then for four years in opposition. Labour Members are now complaining that I came up with a proposal four months ago. We already have detailed support for that proposal from David Higgins and we are going to have a costed plan for it. There was absolutely no attempt to connect the north of England from east to west under the last Labour Government. It is happening under this Conservative-led Government.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is not the best way to have a northern economic powerhouse to have full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? After all, the Prime Minister did say that all options for devolution are there and all are possible. Does the Chancellor agree, or is he afraid of the competition from a more socially just Scottish treasury making better policies for the people of Scotland?
Mr Osborne
We will honour the commitments made during the referendum campaign by all the Unionist parties to devolve further fiscal powers to Scotland. We will honour the commitment we made, and I would ask the Scottish National party to honour the promise it made that this was a referendum which would settle the issue of Scottish independence at least for
“a generation…perhaps for a lifetime”—
I am quoting Alex Salmond. Perhaps the SNP should stop trying to reopen the question that was resolved, and work with us to make sure that Scotland has a great economic future.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Chancellor talks about creating a northern powerhouse, but really is he not just struggling to play catch-up, because while he has been shifting funds from northern cities to wealthier parts of the country, the unemployment rate in the north-east is the highest in the country, wages for working people in the north have fallen by even more than the national average and across the north the number of people unemployed for a year or more is up 62% since the last election? Why will he not match Labour’s plan to devolve real power and £30 billion of funding not just to the north, but to all city and county regions?
Mr Osborne
Labour ran one of the most centralised Governments in history. It did not devolve any powers to anyone—
Mr Osborne
Not in England. In regard to playing catch-up, I would say to the hon. Lady that we have heard from Labour’s civic leaders in Greater Manchester that they want a directly elected mayor. We have heard from the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is the view of those on the Labour Front Bench on this proposal? Last week, the Labour leader was in Manchester saying that the Labour party would never sign up to such a deal, but four days later all his civic leaders did so. What is the policy of the Labour party?
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
2. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to change income tax allowances and thresholds.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
By next year, the personal allowance threshold will have reached £10,500. This will mean an £805 cut in income tax for the typical basic-rate taxpayer, and 3 million people being taken out of income tax altogether. Under a Conservative Government in the next Parliament, we would go further.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Enabling people to keep more of what they earn is the best thing any Government can do for ordinary hard-working taxpayers. Can the Chancellor tell me how many of my constituents in Thurrock will be likely to benefit from these proposals?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is a champion for the hard-working people in her constituency. Not only have our personal tax cuts helped many thousands of those people, but if we go ahead with our plans to raise the personal allowance to £12,500, more than 5,500 people in Thurrock would be lifted out of income tax altogether and 58,000 of the people she represents would benefit.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Raising tax thresholds disproportionately benefits men, because many women earn so little that they do not even reach the lowest threshold. On the other hand, consumption taxes have a disproportionate effect on women who are responsible for managing the family budget. Will the Chancellor rule out any increase in VAT, in order to ensure that our tax system can be fair to both genders?
Mr Osborne
We do not need to raise VAT, because our plans are paid for by the Government living within their means. Does the hon. Lady speak for the Labour party, because she seems to be opposing the increase in the personal income tax threshold? That is a policy that has lifted many low-paid women out of income tax altogether, and I find it surprising that once again the Labour party is against the interests of hard-working people.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
By raising the personal allowance, the Chancellor has pulled 3.2 million people out of tax altogether. At the same time, however, he has dragged 1.6 million people into paying the higher rate of 40p. It is the marginal rates that matter, and that is a massive disincentive to wealth creation in this country. Does he acknowledge that, as soon as the fiscal room to do so is available, it will be essential to act to take as many people as possible out of higher-rate taxation altogether?
Mr Osborne
As my hon. Friend knows, people earning up to £100,000 who are paying the higher rate have seen the benefit of the increase in the personal allowance. They have seen their income tax bills fall. He is right to say that more people have been pulled into the 40p rate, however, and that is why we are proposing to increase the threshold to £50,000. That will be in our election manifesto, and it is something that we can deliver in the next Parliament so that people on middle incomes, as well as those on lower incomes, can benefit from a tax-cutting Conservative Government.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor did not give us the small print relating to the promises that he has just repeated: terms and conditions apply. Will he acknowledge that there is a price tag attached to those promises, and will he tell us specifically what the cost of those commitments would be?
Mr Osborne
What I would say to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is—
Mr Osborne
It is around £7 billion when we add it all up. That would be paid for by lower public expenditure. These are tax cuts that are paid for. I note that that is not the approach taken by the Labour party, which would increase tax, increase borrowing and increase spending, sending the economy back into the mess that it left it in.
Chris Leslie
So we have established that this would mean £7 billion of lower public expenditure. What elements of public expenditure would be involved? Would the Chancellor cut the police again? Would he take the money from schools and hospitals? Or are we to judge him on his usual track record, which would mean that after the election he would simply add it on to VAT?
Mr Osborne
What we have seen under this Government is a party that is able to bring our public finances under control; to reduce the welfare bill; and to make sure the egregious waste in Westminster and Whitehall that took place under the previous Government no longer takes place. We will fund that by lower public expenditure, because once we get the public finances under control we are going to keep them under control.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of tax receipts on the deficit in the last 12 months.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
Progress has been made on reducing the deficit; it is down by more than a third from its peak and borrowing in 2013-14 was under £100 billion for the first time in six years. The latest public finance release shows that the impact of the great recession is still being felt in our economy and the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects real earnings to rise faster than inflation, and receipts are expected to perform more strongly in the second half of the year. It is therefore important to stick to the plan, which is building a more resilient UK economy.
Ian Murray
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that although unemployment has been falling, income tax receipts to the Treasury have stayed flat, despite the Government predicting a significant increase. Does that not show that this Government are presiding over an explosion of underemployment, zero-hours contracts and low pay, and until they deal with that, they will never bring the deficit down?
Danny Alexander
First, I would think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the substantial increase in employment we have seen in the past two or three years—after all, it was his Front-Bench team who predicted that that would not happen under this Government. In fact, 80% of the jobs created in the past 12 months have been in full-time employment, not the part-time employment he is talking about, which is greater than the level in the economy as a whole.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Tax receipts and deficit closure are contingent on a strong economy, so does the Minister welcome the fact that the Legatum Institute’s prosperity index shows that the UK is now the most prosperous economy in all the major EU countries?
Danny Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend that strong tax receipts require a strong economy, and the focus of this Government’s economic policy since the coalition was formed has been to rebuild the UK economy and clear up the mess left to us by the Labour party. We now have the strongest growth in the major world economies, and Government Members should be very proud of that.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Revenue officials have always been slow to catch up with the latest tax-avoidance scams in the construction industry, the latest of which is the umbrella company. Such companies are costing the Revenue huge sums and are exploiting workers. This is spreading rapidly to other sectors, including supply teaching. What is the Minister going to do about the scandal of umbrella companies?
Danny Alexander
We introduced measures precisely to deal with intermediary companies, which are often vehicles for tax avoidance or for minimising tax. We take that very seriously. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence that he wishes to bring to my attention of specific issues that have come to his attention, I would gladly look at it.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the best way to increase tax receipts is to create the conditions for business confidence and growth? That is happening in my constituency, with the recruitment firm eResponse choosing to set up in Rugby because it has assessed that between 1,500 and 2,000 new jobs will become available.
Danny Alexander
I welcome that sort of investment, and I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. Businesses like that one, in every constituency up and down the country, are creating jobs because they have confidence in the economic policies of this Government.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
4. What estimate Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the last year for which figures are available.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HMRC published its latest tax gap estimates on 16 October, and in 2012-13 the gap was estimated at £34 billion—6.8% of total tax due.
Heidi Alexander
Thirty-four billion pounds is a very significant amount of money, and under this Government the amount of uncollected tax has risen by £3 billion. Why has the Minister allowed that to happen?
Mr Gauke
Let us be clear: a rate of 6.8% is lower than was achieved in any year under the last Labour Government. In addition, HMRC’s yield—the money that has come in as a consequence of its efforts—was £7 billion higher in 2013-14 than it was in 2010-11. The fact is that this Government have an excellent record on dealing with tax avoidance, tax evasion and the tax gap.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how the Government are encouraging greater payment of tax through international agreements that we have achieved, for example, with Switzerland?
Mr Gauke
I am sure that the Chancellor can explain that, but as I am already at the Dispatch Box, I will answer the question. The UK has very much led the way in the OECD base erosion and profit shifting process, ensuring that the international tax system is fit for purpose. We have made good progress on that, but there is still work to do.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
18. Does the Minister think that there is any link between the deep cuts to HMRC staff, particularly in Cardiff, and the uncollected tax that is rising under this Government?
Mr Gauke
As I say, what has happened under this Government is that the yield brought in by HMRC has increased year after year. The tax gap is lower for 2012-13 than it was in any year under the previous Labour Government. In truth, the record of HMRC is one of getting more from less, but we have invested in the areas that bring in money on tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure that the unacceptable and unwelcome £1.7 billion bill from the European Union remains an uncollected tax demand, and that there will be no payment of interest on any late payment?
Mr Speaker
It was indeed an extremely ingenious question, as HMRC would not be the tax collector, but, understandably, that did not trouble the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in any way.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
20. One in four children across the UK lives in poverty while this Government allow £34 billion in unpaid tax to go astray. Does the Minister not see an urgency in collecting that tax so that he can eliminate that disgraceful statistic?
Mr Gauke
Let us be clear: the tax gap is lower than it was under the previous Government and yield is higher. By international standards, the UK has one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. We have a good record, but we always seek to do more, which is why at the Budget and autumn statement we have always been able to bring forward measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion, and that is a record with which we will continue.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Minister has failed to acknowledge that families struggling to make ends meet expect the Government to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, and yet the amount of uncollected tax has risen by £3 billion since he came to office. Is it not the truth that that is both deeply unfair to hard-working families and further evidence that this Government have totally failed to tackle tax avoidance?
Mr Gauke
No; we have brought forward 40 measures to reduce tax avoidance, reduced the tax gap as a proportion of tax receipts, and increased by £7 billion the yield brought in by HMRC. The truth is that it is this Government who have acted in this area, and the record of the previous Government does not bear comparison.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
5. What progress he has made on his fiscal consolidation plans.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Government inherited the largest deficit since the second world war. Since then, we have made substantial progress in reducing the deficit. By the end of last year, borrowing had fallen by more than a third. The Government’s consolidation plans have been central to the reduction in the deficit. Indeed, by the end of last year, we had implemented 70% of the £126 billion of fiscal consolidation planned for the end of 2015-16.
Stephen Hammond
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that if we have a credible plan to reduce the deficit, we can credibly plan to protect spending on the NHS and cut taxes? As the Labour party’s announced fiscal rules would allow for an extra £166 billion-worth of borrowing over the next Parliament, there can be no credibility in its deficit plan and in its plan for this country’s economy.
Danny Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend that Labour’s plans would put at serious risk the jobs and stability that this coalition Government have secured. There is a lesson in what he says for all parties in this House, because economic credibility is hard to win and easy to throw away. Any party that does not put forward a plan to sort out the economy or offers unfunded tax cuts to the British people will put its credibility at serious risk.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
On the deficit, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have failed the test they set themselves, which is to close the deficit by the end of this Parliament. Worse than that, they have failed the test that my constituents set for them, which is to put money back in their pockets. That was said to me this week by a grandmother who is desperately worried about her grandson, as he is on a five-hour contract and unable to afford to take a day off work. What will the Chief Secretary do about that?
Danny Alexander
The first thing that we are doing is delivering on what we promised to do when we created this Government in the first place, which is to repair the deep damage that the hon. Lady has to admit was done to the economy under her party’s stewardship. We have now got the United Kingdom into a position in which we are creating more jobs than in the whole of the rest of the European Union combined, and we have the strongest growth rates in the developed world. She should welcome that as something that creates opportunities for young people.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
This fiscal consolidation plan will be heavily influenced by the dramatic liberalisation of pensions announced in the Budget, which will be significantly influenced by the success or otherwise of the guidance guarantee that is now being legislated for. Does the Chief Secretary agree with Ros Altmann that the Financial Conduct Authority should ensure that people who do not receive or take the guidance in this new environment are at least asked proper questions about their circumstances, such as about their partner and their health?
Mr Speaker
Order. A question can be wide, at a stretch, but it should not also be over-long.
Danny Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend that the pensions reforms are a great liberalisation of the pensions system. We will give people, rightly, the opportunity to make use of the money that they have saved for their retirement as and when they choose. The guidance guarantee is enormously important. We have been working closely with organisations such as Citizens Advice to make sure that people have access to the guidance in the way that my hon. Friend has set out, and we need to deliver on that.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury factored into his fiscal consolidation arithmetic the extra £1.7 billion contribution demanded by the EU? Does he accept that that payment is properly due under the formula agreed by the UK Government? When will it be paid, contrary to the answer given by the Chancellor?
Danny Alexander
The Office for Budget Responsibility takes into account forecasts for EU payments in its own forecasts. It did so at the time of the Budget and will do so again at the time of the autumn statement. A demand of this size in this manner is simply not acceptable, and we are absolutely right to do everything that we can to deal with the issue. That is what we in the coalition will ensure happens.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)
7. What recent steps he has taken to reduce tax avoidance.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have taken a wide range of actions to tackle tax avoidance over the Parliament, including introducing the UK’s first ever general anti-abuse rule. This year’s Finance Act introduced a tougher monitoring regime and penalties for promoters of high-risk tax avoidance schemes. We have also given HMRC the power to collect disputed tax bills up front. That removes the incentive for tax avoiders to delay and frustrate HMRC’s efforts to settle disputes and brings forward £4.3 billion in revenues.
Mark Hunter
I am aware that, as a result of measures taken by the coalition Government to crack down on tax avoidance, a record £24 billion in additional tax revenue was raised in the last financial year. Does my hon. Friend agree that much more remains to be done to make sure that multinationals such as Starbucks and Google pay their fair share?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the record yield for the last financial year. Indeed, there are reasons to believe that that record may well be broken for this financial year. As for multinationals, I do not want to be drawn on individual companies, but it is right to say that we need to work internationally, as I mentioned earlier, through the OECD base erosion and profit shifting process. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear at the Conservative party conference, we are looking to take further action in respect of multinationals not paying the tax that they should.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
The Chancellor has said that the Swiss tax deal will raise £5 billion by next year. How much has been raised so far?
Mr Gauke
We have already got in about £800 million, and we will get more, but that is money that we would not otherwise have received. That is a deal worth doing. It is worth pointing out that some people said that if we had not had this deal with the Swiss—which has brought in additional revenue—we would not have been able to make progress on automatic exchange of information, whereas the reality is that just last week the Chancellor signed a deal on behalf of this country that made progress on that.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that under the previous Government the tax gap grew and that all the running in this Parliament on ensuring that businesses pay their fair share of tax and cracking down on tax dodgers has come from our side of the House, and that this Government have made the case internationally as well?
Mr Gauke
The tax gap as a proportion of tax receipts was higher under the previous Government than for every year under this Government. We have introduced about 40 measures to close loopholes, one of which, on disguised remuneration, let us not forget the Labour party opposed.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given the Government’s commitment to clamping down on tax avoidance, can the Minister give us a prediction or a commentary on the yield he expects next year as a result?
Mr Gauke
As we heard earlier, the yield for 2013-14 was £24 billion. HMRC anticipates that that will be broken and that the yield will be higher for this financial year—the details are to come, but that is encouraging. On the tax gap, the small increase is largely due to the VAT tax gap being higher in 2012-13 than the previous year, but we already know that for 2013-14 it will fall.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
8. What recent steps he has taken to rebalance regional economies.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)
This Government are committed to rebalancing the economy in order to strengthen every part of the UK. In July this year local growth deals were agreed with all 39 local enterprise partnerships across England. Each deal reflects the particular needs and capabilities of the local area. Growth deals are just one of several ongoing investment programmes aimed at helping every region in the United Kingdom achieve economic success.
Priti Patel
It is fair to say, as we have heard today, that devolving power to more local areas enables the regions to take responsibility for the decisions that affect their areas, which in the long run will create good, solid, strong local long-term economic plans.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The Minister talks about supporting regional growth and rebalancing the economy, yet promises are being made— £7 billion to Greater Manchester, £7 billion potentially to top taxpayers. That money would sort out transport connectivity issues and help us grow our economy, so will she commit to the Dawlish avoiding line and the resilience measures that we need in the south-west now?
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
In the past four years the Tees valley has received five times as much investment from the regional growth fund as in the last four years of the Labour Government. That is going not just to large companies, but to smaller ones too, such as Wards and ElringKlinger in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that regional growth funding continues to be a key element of rebalancing the economy?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right that, by handing back power to local leaders, we are enabling them to back local jobs and to create prosperity and long-term economic growth. That is exactly what this Government are committed to doing.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome yesterday’s announcement in Greater Manchester and put on record my gratitude to the leadership in Greater Manchester for their efforts. May I offer some advice to the Chancellor? If he wants to endear himself further to the voters of Manchester, he might consider the totality of his Government’s policies on the area. When will he consider going further in fiscal devolution and secondary legislation devolution so that we can truly live up to our aims?
Priti Patel
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the package, which is substantial. The priority must be its implementation and delivery, and we look forward to working with all parties to make sure that it is a success.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
11. What recent forecast he has made of the change in the deficit between May 2010 and May 2015.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
In 2010 the Government inherited the largest deficit since the second world war at 10.2% of GDP. We have made substantial progress in reducing the deficit since 2010. By the end of the last financial year 2013-14, the deficit had fallen from £149 billion to £95.6 billion, estimated at Budget 2014. As a share of GDP that is a fall of more than a third from its peak.
Stephen Timms
The Chancellor’s promise to eradicate the deficit in this Parliament has long since been abandoned, but with the deficit going up in the first half of this financial year, the scaled-back aim of halving the deficit by the end of this Parliament looks in serious trouble as well. The Chief Secretary has just attacked the unfunded tax cuts that the Chancellor announced. Does the Minister still think that the tax deficit will even be halved by the end of the current financial year?
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman is possibly being a little mischievous. As a veteran Chief Secretary to the Treasury from the previous Government, he should well understand that, according to the OBR’s comments and looking at its 2010 forecast errors over time, the biggest difference between 2013 and earlier was the lack of external shock. In 2011, high commodity prices ate into disposable incomes and the euro area crisis damaged credit and confidence. He should well understand why the deficit reduction was impacted by external shocks.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
According to the International Monetary Fund’s “World Economic Outlook”, the UK is set to grow at rates that will put other major European economies to shame. What measures does the Minister believe have allowed that out-performance of our European partners?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is quite right. The UK is now growing at the fastest rate in the G7 and, indeed, is forecast to grow at the fastest rate in the G20. That is the result of our long-term economic plan—reducing business tax rates in order to get more people into work; more people paying their taxes and more people able to bring home a wage. That long-term economic plan is what is bringing our economy back into growth.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
12. How many working people are in receipt of tax credits.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)
In April 2014 there were 3.3 million people in work receiving tax credits, down from 4.8 million in April 2010.
Mr Reed
When the Chancellor came to office, less than a quarter of housing benefit claimants in Croydon were making claims to supplement low pay. Today that figure is two fifths. Will the Minister apologise for pushing growing numbers of hard-working Croydon families into poverty?
Priti Patel
When it comes to the cost of living, Labour’s great recession is what made the country and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents a whole lot poorer. We now have record levels of employment, including a 9% increase in his constituency. Perhaps he would like to welcome that.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
There are a great many studies and much empirical evidence showing that the surest way to combat poverty is through work. Is it not a badge of pride for this Government that in four years we have reduced the number of people in households where no one works by 671,000?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When it comes to tackling the country’s economic problems, we can improve living standards only by getting more people back into work. This Government have been reducing child poverty and ensuring that work pays.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Tax credits are meant to be moving into universal credit. What timetable is the Treasury working to for phasing out tax credits?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If someone comes here to work from the European Union, and if they are in a relatively low-paid job and receive tax credits as a form of benefit, they might effectively be paying no tax at all. Will the Government tell the European Commission that we should have a new system by which people have to pay tax for at least three years before drawing any tax credits or benefits?
Priti Patel
We have already made changes to that whole area, and that is something we will look at further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
14. What estimate he has made of the rate of growth in the economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
In the year to the third quarter of 2014, GDP grew by 3%; it is now 3.4% above the pre-crisis peak. The International Monetary Fund expects the UK economy to be the fastest growing in the G7 in 2014.
Bob Blackman
Clearly the fact that we are leading our European partners in economic growth shows that the long-term economic plan is working. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the eurozone in crisis and external factors uncertain, the last thing we want to do is return the keys to those who crashed the car in the first place?
Danny Alexander
I am sorry that my hon. Friend has brought up the shadow Chancellor’s recent driving incidents, but I agree with the point that the Labour party made the economic mess that we—Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—came together in a coalition to sort out. We have made strong progress in this Parliament, including achieving the strongest growth in the G7. The last thing that the country needs is to hand the keys back to a majority Labour Government.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The long-term economic plan is not working in terms of the living standards of people up and down the country. What has been the rate of growth of wages over the past year?
Danny Alexander
The rate of growth of real wages has been low, and that needs continued attention in the months and years to come. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming the fact that millions of our fellow citizens are now in work as opposed to being unemployed, as they were under the Labour Government. We now need to work to make sure that we increase business investment, enhance productivity, and make sure that the benefits of the economic growth we are seeing are shared as widely as possible. I think that he and I would agree about that.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
15. What recent comparative assessment he has made of growth in average earnings and the rate of inflation since May 2010.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Inflation is at 1.2%—lower than at any point since 2009. We appreciate that times have been tough for families in recent years, but as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, that is
“a direct but delayed result of the 2008 recession”.
Since May 2010, this Government have taken decisive action to support families. We have increased the personal allowance, frozen fuel duty and council tax, and cut energy bills. In the past year, unemployment has fallen at the fastest rate since records began, and the proportion of workless households is lower than it ever was under the previous Government.
Derek Twigg
For how many months under this Government have wages risen faster than prices?
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of employment.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
A record 30.76 million people are in employment. Since the coalition came to power, employment has increased by more than 1.7 million. Over 2 million private sector jobs have been created since early 2010, meaning that for every public sector job lost, over five have been created in the private sector.
Mr Burrowes
Can the Minister help my constituents, who are pleased by the record number of people in jobs in my constituency but confused by the Leader of the Opposition’s claim that our plan would mean the loss of 1 million jobs, and concerned about the impact that Labour’s pledges of more spending, more borrowing and higher taxes would have on jobs in my constituency?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to point out that irony. Under this Government, we have just seen the biggest drop in unemployment ever. In particular, long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are dropping fast, giving hope, prospects and a decent wage to so many in our country. We should be celebrating these things and definitely not letting Labour put them in jeopardy.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Twenty per cent. of my constituents earn less than the living wage. People are working at two or three jobs and still cannot make ends meet. When is the Minister going to recognise that her so-called vaunted increase in employment is based on people earning poverty wages?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely refute what the hon. Lady says. A lot of the particularly big increases in employment have been among very young and older workers, who tend to earn less, but is not that great news for the longer-term prospects of those young people, who are off the unemployment register and developing skills for the future?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
17. What progress he has made on measures to reduce taxes on pensions.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Taxation of Pensions Bill that is currently before the House will reduce tax rates that previously applied if people wanted to withdraw money from their pension flexibly. It will also reduce the 55% tax rate on pension assets when someone dies. These tax cuts will leave people with more of their own money and more choice about how to spend it.
Stephen Metcalfe
These measures clearly show that we are the party on the side of those who do the right thing, work hard, and save. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour would adversely affect those people through its new pensions tax plan?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
While the Minister is talking about cutting tax on pensions, will he spare a thought for the 4,000 members of the British Midland International pension scheme who lost considerable sums of pension entitlement when their airline was taken over? Lufthansa offered them substantial compensation, but Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now insisting on taxing it. What is he doing about that?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question and I have met a couple of hon. Members to discuss the issue. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to apply the law as it currently stands, but that does not give it a great deal of discretion. This is a complicated matter and I am more than happy to set out details in writing for the hon. Gentleman.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Given the significant number of pensioners in my Fylde constituency, may I welcome the sweeping reforms announced by the Chancellor earlier this year? What plans will be put in place to make sure that those pensioners who access their own money get sound advice?
Mr Gauke
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have set out our plans for a guidance guarantee. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that we are working with Citizens Advice in particular to provide a face-to-face service. Good progress is being made, so that service will be available in good time for next April.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
Mr Skinner
How on earth can the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify a tax cut of £3 billion to those getting more than £150,000—like Nigel Farage—while at the same time cutting the wages of nurses and midwives? What a load of hypocrisy.
Mr Osborne
We have cut taxes for 25 million working people. In Bolsover, there are more people in work, fewer people unemployed and the claimant count is down by a third. It is the Conservative party that is the party of the working people now.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of employment is a good economic indicator? If so, will he join me in congratulating Southend businesses on their outstanding apprenticeship schemes, which have helped a huge number of young people and reduced youth unemployment by 47%?
Mr Osborne
I certainly congratulate Southend businesses on the apprenticeship schemes they run. Apprenticeship schemes number 2 million in this Parliament and we aim to take that figure to 3 million in the next Parliament. That is all towards achieving our goal of full employment. We have the highest number of people in work, but we want to go further still.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole country was shocked to learn on the night the Prime Minister arrived at the European Council that the European Union is demanding from the UK a backpayment of a staggering £1.7 billion. The Prime Minister was unclear on this last week, so may I ask the Chancellor just how long before the Council meeting did he and his Ministers and officials learn that the UK was going to be asked to pay more, and why on earth did he not tell the Prime Minister?
Mr Osborne
First of all, may I say that it is very good to see the shadow Chancellor in his place? We had heard disturbing rumours that there was going to be a shadow Cabinet reshuffle. We waited nervously by the phones, but we are absolutely delighted that he is still in his place.
Let me answer the shadow Chancellor’s question directly. There was a meeting at the Commission on Friday 17 October. On Tuesday 21 October, Treasury officials prepared advice for me, and the Prime Minister was aware of the advice on Thursday 23 October. That is very similar to the timetable that the Dutch Government have set out.
Ed Balls
The revisions of the Office for National Statistics came months beforehand and the Financial Secretary knew weeks before. The Chancellor knew only two days before and he still forgot to tell the Prime Minister. Was he not just asleep on the job?
Let me ask the Chancellor another question about the way in which Europe is affecting the public finances. The Government promised to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. According to the latest figures, net migration is 243,000—up 38% on the previous year. Will the Chancellor confirm that his Budget forecast for net migration has been revised not down, but up? What is his assumption for net migration for the 2015 public finance forecasts?
Mr Osborne
The reason there has been an increase in European migration is that the British economy is succeeding while the economies in Europe sadly are not. That is why we want to seek a different relationship with the European Union, to take into account that and other features of our relationship. I notice that the last Labour Chancellor now supports a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, but the shadow Chancellor does not. The truth is this: we will set out our forecasts to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, but the idea that Labour would get a better deal in Europe is total fantasy, alongside the shadow Chancellor’s fantasy that Labour left us with a golden economic legacy and that he has been right all along and everyone else is wrong. The right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) has resigned, so there is now a vacancy for a conspiracy theorist at the Home Office—the shadow Chancellor should apply.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
T7. Small businesses and retailers are the backbone of our economy. With small business rate relief, a relief for businesses re-occupying long-term empty properties and other discount schemes, this Government have shown their support for small business. Will my right hon. Friend go further and review the business rate system to ensure that it is fair and does not deter investment?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the impact of business rates. That is of course why we have extended small business rate relief and helped 360,000 small properties. It is why we have offered the £1,000 high street discount to stores in Harrogate and elsewhere around the country. We are going to review the business rate system to make sure that it is simpler, fairer, more transparent and more responsive to economic circumstances, and he is very welcome to take part in that review.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. What is the link between the Chancellor’s £7 billion of unfunded tax cuts and his blocking of the OBR from auditing the tax and spend plans of other political parties ahead of the election? I suggest that the clue is in the question.
Mr Osborne
Interestingly, we conducted an independent review by one of the Canadian officials involved in auditing their finances—
Mr Osborne
The right hon. Gentleman says “Come on”, but there were no independent forecasts when he was in the Treasury. He was the economic adviser who cooked up the forecasts, and came to the House and as a result misled this country about its economic fortunes. The OBR is working as an independent institution. The independent review of the OBR said that we should not extend its powers. We do not want the Labour party undermining the independent institution that has brought confidence back to public statistics.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T8. Last week, the Queen opened a new Jaguar Land Rover plant in Wolverhampton, which is creating 1,400 new jobs. The enterprise zone and the black country city deal are set to create nearly 10,000 more new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could go even further in Birmingham and the black country if our local authorities followed the example set by those of the northern powerhouse?
Mr Osborne
The investment by Jaguar Land Rover is very welcome. I was at one of the Jaguar Land Rover plants in September, and saw the incredible investment that is going in there. The new engine plant in the black country is a huge and welcome investment in the west midlands. I take very seriously my hon. Friend’s suggestion that we should talk to authorities in the west midlands to see if we can build on what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. I would be very happy to start those discussions with civic leaders and local MPs.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
T3. Will the Chancellor confirm that the only way to reduce the £1.7 billion bill from the EU and avoid paying interest requires the UK to secure support from a qualified majority of EU members on rule changes and get a vote in the European Parliament on delaying the deadline for payment? How confident is he that he can achieve that?
Mr Osborne
We are operating under a tough set of rules. The rules were put in place in 2007.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
T10. There are now 1,217 fewer people claiming unemployment benefit in my constituency than in 2010. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to continue the job of reducing business taxes to incentivise business to create jobs, rather than to adopt the policy of slapping higher taxes on business, which will only have the effect of destroying jobs?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been lucky enough to visit successful manufacturing businesses in his constituency with him and, indeed, to see the investment that as a result we are able to make in new hospitals in the west midlands. He of course makes the very strong point that if you increase business taxes—that is the official policy of the Labour party—in such a competitive world, you will destroy jobs, reduce revenues and not be able to fund good public services.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T5. Will the Chancellor, as the self-styled champion of the north, now look again at his early decisions and their impact, and will he commit to a fairer funding settlement for north-east councils?
Mr Osborne
The whole United Kingdom has had to make difficult decisions because we inherited a record budget deficit, but I am willing to work with councils in the north-east to see whether we can build on what we have achieved in Greater Manchester. There is real potential to do that and to make key investments in the infrastructure of the north-east. For example, I think there is a strong case for the A1 north of Newcastle to be dualled.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This Government’s support for apprenticeships has hugely helped the 40% drop in youth unemployment in Gloucester. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to look constructively at new and innovative vocational schemes in sectors where there are jobs available—such as HGV drivers, haulage companies, and electroplaters for the Poeton company—but a shortage of skills at the moment?
Mr Speaker
Order. I try to get in as many Members as possible, but I think some colleagues have forgotten—or perhaps never learned—that topical questions are supposed to be shorter. Please do not abuse the process because you are spoiling it for other people.
Mr Osborne
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has worked with local employers to improve skills, and I visited a successful apprenticeship and training scheme with him. We want to ensure that local employers are involved in shaping those apprenticeships and further education courses, and that is precisely what we are now setting up.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T6. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that under the Chancellor’s current policies 900,000 more children will be in relative poverty by 2020 compared with 2011. Is his real attitude towards the working poor in this country too much stick and too little carrot?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about child poverty, which under this Government is down. That does not in any way reduce the need for us to continue taking steps to reduce child poverty, the most important of which is having an economy that creates jobs. In the end, for most people the best route out of poverty is to get back into employment.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
May I urge the Chancellor to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) so that we can make the case for including the dualling of the A69 in the autumn statement? Hopefully such a meeting could be before the autumn statement takes place.
Mr George Osborne
My hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) have made a strong case for improving transport links in the north of England and between the north-east and Carlisle. They have already brought the A69 to my attention, and I would be happy to have that meeting.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T9. Given that the Chancellor is claiming to be the champion of the north, will he explain why he has given a £3 billion tax cut to people who earn £150,000 a year, while people in Hull are on average £1,600 a year worse off?
Mr Osborne
We have cut taxes, including taxes for people in the north of England, for 25 million working people. Under the Labour Government, the gap between the north and south increased. We are working across party divides with local authority leaders to get in the investment and change this decade-long imbalance in our country.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The last Labour Government cancelled the Supertram scheme in Leeds and then told the city that it could only have a bus-based solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as devo-max and “devo Manc”, we also need “devo Yorks”?
Danny Alexander
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and the Deputy Prime Minister has been championing that agenda in government for the last four and a half years. If the leaders of Leeds wish to come forward with proposals for further devolution and more power over the things he has been talking about, to ensure that we get the right economic developments in the Leeds area, we would be delighted to have those discussions in an active way, to try to settle a deal there as well.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The Chancellor has rightly said that Europe is in danger of pricing itself out of the world economy, and one way in which it is making itself uncompetitive is through its costly renewable energy agenda. Will he try to persuade his neighbour in Downing street to abandon that dogma and liberalise the UK energy market?
Mr George Osborne
The Prime Minister achieved a good deal for the United Kingdom, and got away from the solid and fixed renewables target that the Labour Government signed up to. If the hon. Gentleman wants Britain to leave the European Union, that will be achieved with a Conservative Government offering a referendum, and him having a vote and seeing what the outcome is. [Interruption.] Under the Conservative Government, the British people will get a referendum. We will make the argument for staying in a reformed Europe, and the hon. Gentleman can make the case he wants to make. That will not happen under a Labour Government.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
May I urge the Chancellor to support the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in calls for banks not to shut the last branch in a town? HSBC is about to shut its last branch in Lee-on-Solent, leaving businesses with no banking support at all.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many people are concerned about bank closures. I recently had a round table with a number of banks and challenger banks to discuss the issue, not least the change towards mobile and telephone banking. We are certainly looking closely at the matter.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures released this month show that the amount of uncollected taxes has increased by £3 billion each year under the Chancellor. What difficulties has he found in collecting those taxes, and what does he propose to do about them?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when we debated that at some length a few minutes ago. The fact is that the tax gap for 2012-13 was lower as a percentage of tax receipts than in any year under the Labour Government. Tax yield from HMRC has gone up by £7 billion since 2010-11.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues but, as they will know, at Treasury questions demand always massively outstrips supply. Whether the business managers want to extend the sessions or provide further sessions with the Chancellor’s concurrence, who knows? But we must now move on.
Petition
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I rise today to present a petition from the residents of Longridge and Whittingham, and other residents of the Ribble Valley. There has been a deluge of planning applications to build thousands of houses in my area, and in neighbouring areas under Preston council control but affecting Longridge in the Ribble Valley. Whalley has had several hundred houses foisted upon it on appeal. Clitheroe is the same. Barrow will be transformed—at the moment, it is a small village of about 300 houses—to take 504 more houses on appeal, with 65 other houses approved and further applications in the pipeline. Other villages are suffering planning pressures.
Councillors are exasperated and council officers are overrun with work. The public are frustrated that their voice is thwarted by planning inspectors. The council is strapped for cash defending expensive appeals. Their cry is simply this: enough is enough. I back them 100%. This is their plea to the Government today via a petition signed by 1,065 local residents.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of Longridge, Whittingham and the Ribble Valley Parliamentary Constituency,
Declares that the small rural towns and villages like Longridge, Clitheroe and Whalley up and down the country are under siege from housing developers seeking to build excessive numbers of homes to encourage people to migrate from industrial towns and cities to rural communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons recognises the problems of these communities like Longridge where developers are seeking to build 2,300 houses and amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:
(a) Suspend the operation of clauses 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Forum until 90% of local authorities have an approved local development plan so there is no presumption in favour of planning consent where a local authority does not have an approved Local Development Plan or 5 years of development land and
(b) Allow local communities divided by a local government boundary to be treated as one entity for planning purposes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001395]
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
With permission Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
The Government have long been concerned about the worrying pattern of divisive community politics and alleged mismanagement of public money by the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets. Following persuasive evidence presented to me making serious allegations in April, I commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a formal best value inspection report of the council. In my written statement this morning, I published the PwC report. It paints a deeply concerning picture of obfuscation, denial, secrecy, the breakdown of democratic scrutiny and accountability, and a culture of cronyism risking the corrupt spending of public funds.
Let me outline some of the conclusions. PwC found that the mayoral administration’s grants programme handed out taxpayers’ money with no apparent rationale for the grant awards. There were no objectives, and there was no fair or transparent approach to grants, which the council’s so-called corporate grants programme board was supposed to ensure. There was no proper monitoring. Grants were systematically made without transparency. Officer evaluation was overruled—across mainstream grants, 81% of all officer recommendations were rejected. More than £400,000 was given to bodies that failed the minimum criteria to be awarded anything at all.
On land disposal, properties were sold to third parties without proper process. Poplar town hall was sold to a company involving a person who had helped the mayor in his election campaign, against internal advice, and the winning bid was submitted after other bids had been opened. A number of other property transactions similarly had dubious processes.
Taxpayers’ money was spent on unlawful political advertising for the mayor. Ofcom ruled that the spending was in breach of the Communications Act 2003 and the code of broadcast advertising. There was a lack of any documentation or monitoring of the use of media advisers, so taxpayers’ money could be improperly and unlawfully used to pay for the mayor’s political activities.
Irregular practice took place in the awarding of contracts. For example, PwC identified cases in which one of the council’s officers recalls that, during a meeting, the mayor allegedly annotated a list of suppliers to indicate which suppliers he did not wish to be selected. As a whole, PwC concluded that the council had failed in numerous aspects to comply with the best value duty.
The council’s core governance arrangements have centred on the three statutory officers: the head of paid service, the chief financial officer, and the monitoring officer. The council has failed to make permanent appointments to those key positions. Currently, all three posts are held by interim appointments. PwC concludes that the governance arrangements do not appear capable of preventing or responding to the succession of failures by the mayoral administration. Executive power is unchecked and executive power has been misused.
The PwC report is not the only evidence of where the council is seriously failing on high profile activities that are open to abuse by, for example, political interference. Concerns have been raised about the ability of the senior officers responsible—the electoral registration officer and the returning officer—to ensure the proper administration of elections. The current election petition on the May 2014 European and mayoral elections is now sub judice. I will make no comment on anything before the election court, but I note that on 1 July the Electoral Commission published a report on the elections in Tower Hamlets. The commission concluded that there are significant lessons for the returning officer appointed by the council. Immediate and sustained action must be taken to provide assurance that future elections and electoral registration will be well managed and efficiently and effectively delivered. Free and fair elections must be the bedrock of local democracy.
There is a clear picture that there has been a fundamental breakdown of governance in this mayoral administration. If unchecked, it will allow improper conduct to run rife, further undermining public confidence in the council, damaging community cohesion, and, ultimately, putting public services across the borough at risk. The consequence of this conclusion, expressed in formal terms, is that I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. I will therefore need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end, in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am today writing to the council to ask it to make representations, if it wishes, both on the PwC report and on the intervention package I am proposing.
The proposed package will need to do three things: first, it will need to put an end to all council activities that are not compatible with its best value duty; secondly, it will need to remove, so far as possible, the risk of further failures to comply with the duty; thirdly, it will need to rebuild the governance and financial management capacity of the council to secure its future compliance with the best value duty. My proposed intervention is centred on putting in place a team of three commissioners whom I will appoint and who will be accountable to me. Their role will be to oversee or, as appropriate, exercise certain functions of the council. I envisage that the commissioners will be in place until 31 March 2017. It will be open to Ministers to review this in the light of the progress made by the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.
To help me assess progress, I propose that within three months of launching the intervention the council will, with the commissioners, draw up and agree an action plan to secure the council’s future compliance with the best value duty. The commissioners will report to me at six-monthly intervals on progress being made. The action plan must reflect the specific intervention measures in the proposed package, which are as follows.
First, I propose to direct the council as a matter of urgency to undertake, as the commissioners may direct to their satisfaction, a recruitment exercise to make permanent appointments to the positions of the three statutory officers, all currently only interim appointments. I also propose to direct that any subsequent dismissal, suspension or further appointment of statutory officers must be with the agreement of the commissioners.
Secondly, I propose to direct that the council’s functions on grant making are to be exercised by the commissioners. The council must provide the commissioners with all the assistance they need. The commissioners will have regard to any views the council has on individual grants.
Thirdly, I propose to direct that the council obtains the prior written agreement of the commissioners before entering into any commitment to dispose of, or otherwise transfer to third parties, property other than individual housing.
Fourthly, I propose to direct that the council prepares a fully costed plan for how its publicity functions can be properly exercised. It must agree that plan with the commissioners, report to the commissioners on the delivery of that plan and adopt any recommendation of the commissioners with respect to that plan or to publicity more generally.
Fifthly, I propose to direct that the council’s functions of appointing an electoral registration officer and a returning officer for elections are to be exercised as a matter of urgency by the commissioners.
Sixthly, I propose to direct the council to prepare with the commissioners a plan for addressing the weaknesses on contracting identified in the PwC report. It must seek the written agreement of the commissioners before entering into any contract or service agreement contrary to any recommendation of the statutory officers.
Finally, I am seeking two written undertakings from the council: first, that it will not, without my approval, enter into any agreement or modify any existing agreement for the making of grants, pending any decision on any proposed intervention package; and, secondly, that the council will not appoint or designate any statutory officer without my prior approval, pending any decisions on any proposed intervention package.
If I receive no satisfactory undertaking within 24 hours, I will use the urgency powers I have under statute. I can direct the council not to take any action on the making of grants or appointing of statutory officers without my approval in this interim period. I am also asking the council to provide information about any property transactions it has in the pipeline. Depending on what, if any, information I receive, I may need to use my urgency powers of direction to safeguard the council and its resources.
The council now has 14 days to make representations to me on the PwC report and on my proposed intervention package. I shall then consider carefully any representations the council makes and decide how to proceed. If I decide to intervene along these lines, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the commissioners. Any directions I make will be without prejudice to my making further directions, should it prove necessary. I will update the House on any conclusions in due course.
The report has cost just under £1 million, which will be borne by the council. It would have been much cheaper, had the mayoral administration not been so obstructive. But to place this spending in context, the financial irregularities identified relate to a £1.4 billion a year council budget. There is significant scope for taxpayers’ money to be protected and saved from these interventions. This is a rare occasion where central Government intervention is required.
The commissioners I sent into Doncaster in 2010 show that such a targeted approach can turn around a dysfunctional mayoral administration. This thorough scrutiny by independent auditors shows we now have a stronger audit regime following the abolition of the Audit Commission, which did nothing to stop corrupt practices emerging.
Localism requires local accountability and local democracy. Municipal corruption undermines the local checks and balances that are vital in a democracy and essential in mayoral systems with their concentration of power. We cannot risk such corruption elsewhere, but it is not just about the money. The abuse of taxpayers’ money and the culture of cronyism reflects a partisan community politics that seeks to trade favours and spread division on the rates. Such behaviour is to the detriment of integration and community cohesion in Tower Hamlets and in our capital city.
This is a borough where there have been widespread allegations of extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism that have been allowed to fester without proper challenge. Certainly, Tower Hamlets has challenges given its level of deprivation and its diverse population, but one has only to look across the border at the mayoral system in Newham to see that there is an alternative. Councils should be championing a common sense of identity and Britishness—across class, colour and creed.
In all of this, it is the residents of Tower Hamlets who are being let down, whose services are being put at risk, whose taxpayers’ money is being wasted and whose home borough is being criticised rather than being cited with municipal pride.
Despite rare cases such as that of Tower Hamlets, councils as a whole have a good record of transparency, probity and accountability, and that is a reputation worth protecting. As a former councillor, I am proud of the standing that local government has in the United Kingdom, and of what it contributes to the lives of our communities up and down the country. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government, because there can be no place for rotten boroughs in 21st-century Britain.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to have advance sight of his statement. Given that he had received serious allegations about Tower Hamlets earlier this year, and given the material that had been submitted to the Department, it was clearly right for him to exercise the powers granted to him under the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best-value duty. As I said at the time, that audit had to be full, open and transparent if it was to command public confidence. The publication of PwC’s report today has fulfilled the requirements for openness and transparency, and it has certainly done a comprehensive job, which may well explain why the process has taken slightly longer than I think both sides had originally hoped.
The findings of the report are indeed very troubling. There was a lack of transparency in regard to the giving of grants, the governance of grant awards was not effective, and grants were given to organisations that had been ruled ineligible or did not meet the required evaluation score. As for property transactions, in three of the four cases that were investigated—those of Poplar town hall, Sutton street depot and Mellish street—the inspection concluded that
“the Authority failed to comply with its best value duty.”
In the case of Poplar town hall,
“The Authority accepted a late bid from the winning bidder after other bids had been opened, creating a risk of bid manipulation”,
and the authority did not, in fact, select the highest bidder.
In relation to publicity and the use of media advisers, the report refers to a finding by Ofcom that a broadcast constituted political advertising, and states that
“the clear implication is that Authority monies were spent inappropriately on what amounted to political advertising for the benefit of the Mayor…This in itself constitutes a failure to comply with the best value duty in this instance."
The overall conclusion of the inspection is that the current governance arrangements do not appear to be capable of preventing, or responding appropriately to, the failures identified. The fact that the council is still without permanent appointments to its three most important statutory officer posts should also be a matter of great concern to the House. In the light of what has been found, we support the course of action announced by the Secretary of State, although we must recognise that it is a very serious step to take. It is important for the considerable powers with which the Secretary of State has been entrusted to be used not lightly or because of a political disagreement with decisions made by a local authority, but because that local authority has failed in its statutory duties.
When does the Secretary of State propose to announce the names of the three commissioners, and what background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone in making the appointments? Will the commissioners be paid, and, if so, who will bear the cost? The Secretary of State said that he envisaged that the commissioners would be in place until March 2017. Will the length of their term of office depend on the progress that they and the council make, together with the mayor, in dealing with the problems that have been identified? What progress reports will the Secretary of State, and the House, receive? What relationship will the commissioners have with the elected councillors in Tower Hamlets, and what role does he envisage for wider local government in the provision of support for Tower Hamlets, as happened in the case of Doncaster?
At the time of the Secretary of State’s original decision to send in the auditors, he told the House that a file had also been passed to the Metropolitan police for their consideration. The police subsequently announced that they had found
“no credible evidence of criminality”.
Does the Secretary of State believe that the PwC report contains any further information that might warrant its being referred to the police, or is that aspect of the allegations now closed?
In respect of publicity, the inspection report says that a
“significant proportion of the budget is allocated to the”
—weekly—
“publication of ‘East End Life’”,
which seems to be little more than a vehicle for promotion of the mayor. The Secretary of State knows of my concern about that particular publication. Will he tell us when he intends to make a final decision about “East End Life”?
There are, of course, other legal processes under way relating to Tower Hamlets, and it is right for us not to discuss them here. I will say, however, that given the concerns that have been expressed about the conduct of elections, we also support the Secretary of State’s decision to ask the commissioners to take responsibility for the appointment of an electoral registration officer and a returning officer for future elections.
Local authorities have important powers and duties, which they exercise on behalf of the people whom they represent. They should be free to do that independently, in the way that they see fit. However, with those powers come responsibilities, and, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that all decisions are made on an open, fair and transparent basis. The people of Tower Hamlets are proud to live alongside each other in a community that reflects the face of modern Britain, which is why there can be no place for the politics of division in Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, whatever its motivation. It is the job of every locally elected representative to care for the interests of all his or her constituents.
It seems clear from the report with which we have been presented today that those standards have not been upheld in a number of instances in the case of Tower Hamlets and its mayor. Just as, in April, Tower Hamlets welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that council processes had been run appropriately—which, as we have learnt today, was not the case—it should now accept the findings of this report, and work with the commissioners to ensure that what has gone wrong is put right.
Mr Pickles
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment. In particular, I agree with his view that in a diverse and vibrant community, a community to be proud of, it is the job and the responsibility of councillors and the mayor to ensure that no one feels out of place and everyone feels welcome.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, of which I hope I have made a reasonable note. He asked me for the names of the commissioners. I hope that he will forgive me: I have not yet made a decision. He asked whether I would want to consult and discuss matters once I had made a decision; well, of course I will. He asked about pay. The council will pay expenses and a reasonable fee. He asked about progress reports. As I said in my statement, we will expect such reports every six months, and, as in the case of Doncaster, we will of course share that information with the House.
I noted the right hon. Gentleman’s special pleading in respect of “East End Life”, which, perhaps, represents an exception to his usual views. We will listen to representations and make an announcement in due course, but that will be entirely separate from the process that I have described.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to criminal activities. I recall what the police said about the subject. I also recall their subsequent statement that they were continuing to look at the issues. I have no idea whether the report contains allegations of criminality, although we will of course send a copy to the police for their information. However, I have here a statement from the mayor of Tower Hamlets which relates directly to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He said that I had announced that I was “concerned about potential fraud” and that
“the Evening Standard ran these claims on its front page” .
He added:
“These allegations have been rejected by PwC.
The report highlights flaws in processes. These are regrettable. We will learn from this report and strengthen our procedures accordingly.”
I am afraid to say that it seems to me that the mayor’s test is, “If you’re not actually caught with your fingers in the till, you’re innocent.” There are serious flaws in what has occurred. If I was the mayor of Tower Hamlets, I would be hanging my head in shame, because what he has allowed to occur in Tower Hamlets is shameful—not that I have made a final decision.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Forty years ago our electoral systems and controls were the envy of the world. They have deteriorated dramatically in the past 15 years and this report highlights that fact. This is not only a question for Tower Hamlets, but it features largely in Tower Hamlets. Will the Minister speak to the Electoral Commission to see whether we can have a proper review of electoral systems to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again in areas right across our country?
Mr Pickles
I am sure the Electoral Commission regularly reviews procedures, but my hon. Friend says things have deteriorated in the past few years, and he is of course right. Our rules and regulations with regard both to electoral law and to local government conduct assume people will behave reasonably—and the truth is that in the overwhelming majority of local authorities around the country people obey not only the law, but the spirit of the law—which makes it very difficult when we are dealing with an authority that has a cavalier disregard for good practice and probity. I will certainly ensure that the Electoral Commission is made aware of my hon. Friend’s very wise words.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Every community in our country is entitled to the highest standards of probity and honesty in our democracy, and no community should put up with lower standards and poor governance and transparency, so I welcome the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. In particular, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to appointing an electoral registration officer and returning officer. For too long the Electoral Commission has relayed concerns about public confidence in the electoral process, and it is vital that we give people confidence that the forthcoming elections will be free and fair. Can the Secretary of State say when those officers will be appointed, as this is, as he says, a matter of great urgency?
Mr Pickles
Clearly I will want to listen to what the council has to say to my suggestion, and we have given it two weeks to respond. Assuming—although I make no assumption—that I am not satisfied with its response, it will be a high priority for the appointed commissioners, should I decide to appoint them, to get those two people in place. Given that a general election and London elections are coming up, people need to feel confident in the system.
I did not reply to an earlier question so, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to do so now: will we be looking to get a package of care together, as we did in Doncaster with the Local Government Association? Yes, of course we will.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but where taxpayers have been deliberately short-changed will he reconsider reintroducing surcharging?
Mr Pickles
I have no intention of reintroducing those measures in the lifetime of this Parliament. What is most important for us is to get a strong sense of corporate identity for Tower Hamlets and some transparency, so when people are overriding the sensible decisions made, they understand that it will be given the full glare of publicity.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Tower Hamlets is a great borough, whose reputation is being destroyed by independent mayor Lutfur Rahman and his Tower Hamlets First party. The mayor tries to present himself as a victim but, from reading the report, it seems that he and his senior colleagues are either in denial—they are the only people who do not know what is going on in Tower Hamlets—or they are lying to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Maybe the Secretary of State could indicate which he thinks is the case. Can he reassure us that the commissioners, if and when appointed, will meet the leaders of the Conservative and Labour groups on the council as a matter of urgency, and may I ask him to reconsider his decision to charge the taxpayers of Tower Hamlets the full sum of £1 million? Given the profile of Tower Hamlets—the poverty of the borough, notwithstanding the new business district, with Canary Wharf—charging Tower Hamlets taxpayers the £1 million seems unfair, especially as they are being victimised by Lutfur Rahman more than anyone else.
Mr Pickles
On the latter point, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the method of charging is laid down in the legislation, and it needs to be emphasised strongly that the amount PricewaterhouseCoopers charged would have been considerably less had the mayor decided to co-operate and not to obfuscate and delay. The only reason I did not make this statement in July is the delays by that administration. If the mayor would like to make a substantial contribution out of his own pocket to the report, that would seem to me to be a sensible thing to do.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that I recognise from personal experience that intervention of this kind is very seldom used and its significance is not to be understated, but will he accept from me, from the experience of when we worked together in Doncaster, that this is utterly justified in this case, and that cumulatively this well-balanced report from PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates an overall political culture that is worse than that discovered in the Doncaster case and that justifies the high level of intervention? Will he pay particular attention to the need to have strong commissioners with experience in electoral and administrative processes, because the lack of objectivity of former monitoring officers has been the subject of comment in the House before, and in Tower Hamlets opposition members, both Labour and Conservative, have in the past not had the protection from the statutory officers that they were entitled to when subject to personal—in the case of my friend Councillor Peter Golds, deliberate homophobic—abuse from supporters of the mayor? That cannot be accepted in a civilised country.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend was a very distinguished Minister in my Department, and he will know how long I agonised over the decision on Doncaster, because this kind of intervention goes against everything I believe in. I believe that local government is an independent entity and that is one of the strengths of our constitution, but there comes a point at which we need to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability, and it is certainly my hope that one of the commissioners will have extensive experience of practical election law and procedure, as that will strengthen that. It is also certainly my intention that Tower Hamlets will come out of this process much stronger.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the actions and proposed actions of the Secretary of State and his comments about the general good conduct of local government and local councillors throughout the country. He referred to audit arrangements. There have been some changes, but there is nothing in them that means that throughout this period the auditor in Tower Hamlets did not have the ability and powers properly to audit these accounts. However, in December 2012 the overview and scrutiny committee, despite being quite weak in many respects, highlighted concerns about the grant process and asked for a referral to the district auditor. Despite that, the external auditor, KPMG, signed off these accounts without qualification for 2012-13, as it did for 2011-12. Are there not serious questions to be asked about the role of the external auditors in this regard and about their value for money, or lack of it, in carrying out this work?
Mr Pickles
I was probably unkind to the Audit Commission in many respects, but it did stand around doing nothing on this, as, indeed, it did on Doncaster—which required the LGA to act in Doncaster. The existing auditors have to answer for their own conduct, but I will say that I do not think this was their finest hour.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
There are some good councillors in Tower Hamlets representing the major parties and, as other hon. Members have said, they have been raising these issues for a number of years. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the commissioners have the powers to ensure that the statutory council meetings and the scrutiny meetings of the committees are carried out properly, so that those councillors who have a proper democratic mandate can finally be heard?
Mr Pickles
I need to emphasise, and not just for form’s sake, that I am waiting to hear from Tower Hamlets in response to my report, but should I decide to appoint commissioners, one of their prime responsibilities would be to ensure that there was a robust system of transparency, scrutiny and accountability. The reason that I want to do that is that that is exactly what happens in just about every council up and down the land. That is normality, and no one ever really questions it. Sometimes, when I talk to other Government Departments about introducing new things for local government, people suggest nailing them down and making them a statutory duty, but the truth is that we probably do not need to do that. This is how local government operates, and how it has always operated. It puts its citizens first, so when we have one council that disregards that principle, it makes the system much more difficult to operate.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I entirely support the actions that he has outlined. It is absolutely right that there should be effective intervention in the exceptional cases in which individual local authorities have manifestly failed. I was involved in a similar action some years ago in Hackney, which I am pleased to say led to significant improvements. Hackney is now a very different authority from what it was. One of the lessons from that is that intervention to root out problems should also involve trying to build on the strengths of the authority and of the elected members who want to transform the area. Will he tell us what more will be done to encourage the elected representatives of Tower Hamlets who want to transform that area for the better to work with the commissioners to achieve a lasting improvement in the service?
Mr Pickles
I might be doing the right hon. Gentleman a disservice, but I think he was the architect of the powers that I am currently using, so I shall be freshly polishing the substantial bust of him that sits in my office. He is right to refer to experience. In Doncaster, we used the Local Government Association and peer-to-peer monitoring, and we got alongside the councillors. It was not just the mayor that we were trying to bolster up; it was the councillors as well. We took cognisance of the fact that we needed to bring out the best. Not everything is wrong in Tower Hamlets, as the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) have said. It is a wonderful, vibrant place, but frankly it deserves better leadership.
Mr Speaker
I will leave open the question of whether a bust of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) is any more or less substantial than any bust of the Secretary of State.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I want to revisit a comment that has been made by colleagues on both sides of the House. It appears that the rot started to set in as a result of electoral fraud at the very beginning, and that that was the first step. Many people from a south Asian community background feel that it is unfortunate that this spotlight has been shone on the community. I hope that, for the sake of community cohesion, the proposed action can be a stepping stone towards ensuring that we have a full, robust and fair electoral system. Many migrants come to these shores to escape electoral fraud and dishonesty in the countries they came from.
Mr Pickles
I agree that electoral probity, honesty and transparency are hallmarks of our democracy. No one, on being elected—or failing to be elected—should have to wonder whether that was the electorate’s decision or a result of the system. With regard to your last remark, Mr Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that it is just a matter of scale?
Mr Speaker
We cannot explore this issue at length, but in terms of being intellectually substantial, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the Secretary of State both score very highly.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Members on both sides of the House will be shocked by many elements of the report. Knowing how rigorous the process relating to securing grants is in Liverpool, I think many people will be appalled to learn that £407,700 was given to bodies in Tower Hamlets that failed to meet the minimum criteria for being awarded anything at all. What efforts will the Secretary of State’s Department be making to recover that money?
Mr Pickles
We will certainly look into that possibility. It is the council and the people of Tower Hamlets who have not received the appropriate sums. In the early part of the report, there is a map that shows how the grants have been allocated in a quite arbitrary way, concentrating them on just one area. The fact that more than £400,000 was simply handed out, as though by some mediaeval monarch, with no thought or consideration goes to the heart of the matter. Public money is precious and it should be accounted for. No one should receive public money without proper scrutiny. I refer the hon. Lady to the map on page 23 of the report, which shows the way in which the money has been distributed. It is an absolute disgrace.
Mr Speaker
We are all deeply grateful to the Secretary of State. I hope that everyone saw the map that he took the trouble to show to the House. Inspections can no doubt take place afterwards as well.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Notwithstanding what has been going on in Tower Hamlets, does my right hon. Friend agree that elected mayors can provide a positive and effective form of leadership in local government?
Mr Pickles
Of course elected mayors can provide an effective form of leadership, but given their enormous power, they have an even greater obligation to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of their decisions and that the public have an opportunity to be assured that those decisions are made fairly and reasonably.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I need to declare that my husband works for the Leadership Centre for Local Government. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and, in particular, his comments about good mayors. In Hackney, the mayor has done an incredible job of leading Hackney towards becoming one of the best local authorities in the country. I believe that the mayor of Tower Hamlets should resign on the back of this report. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Will he also, for clarity, outline to the House what the citizens of Tower Hamlets could do to abandon the mayoral model if they chose to do so?
Mr Pickles
The most important thing is for us to get into a position in which the residents of Tower Hamlets can feel confident in the mayoral system and in the functioning of their local government, which is now at best dysfunctional and at worst riddled with cronyism and corruption. I am not entirely sure that it would be appropriate for us to consider a big constitutional change. This is not about something being wrong with the system; it is about something being fundamentally wrong with the way in which the system has operated and with the people that are chosen. Should the mayor decide to resign at this point—I have no belief that he will—can I say that he would not be missed?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I speak as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I was a London borough councillor for eight years. I have seldom seen such an appalling indictment of local governance. It is appropriate that we should put on record our thanks and pay tribute to those brave civic leaders such as Councillor Peter Golds who blew the whistle, and to journalists such as Ted Jeory and Andrew Gilligan who, in the best journalistic tradition, have fought a lonely battle to reveal the crooked and rotten regime in Tower Hamlets. May I point out to my right hon. Friend that that regime came about following an election? As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, we need to revisit the election arrangements in Tower Hamlets, focusing on postal votes, personation, polling place identification and, particularly, voter intimidation at polling places. This is imperative, not just in Tower Hamlets but across the country.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend has a justified reputation for being knowledgeable about matters relating to elections, and if I have a particular problem in this area, he is the first person I seek out. He outlines the task that awaits the returning officer and the electoral registration officer in Tower Hamlets. I hope that robust schemes are put in to support those two officers, be that through commissioners or through the council, should I decide not to act.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his shadow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for defending the best traditions of local government in England from the Dispatch Box today. Given that this week we have seen a further roll-out of the mayoral model, particularly in Greater Manchester, perhaps now is the time for the Secretary of State to define more closely the roles, responsibilities and expectations of an elected mayor and to uphold the independence of the local civil service in law.
Mr Pickles
I am not sure whether it will be necessary to uphold the local officials, some of whose rights are enshrined in law. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point I made earlier to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), which is that for the most part local government operates under this system and we do not need to regulate it too closely because everyone operates, and has always done so, for the benefit of the public. The difficulty comes when a council disregards the norm, the rules and the normal give and take that occurs in local authorities. I am not entirely persuaded that we should legislate for all local authorities because one has behaved badly, but I am persuaded that whatever system we operate, be it a cabinet, committee or mayoral system—I do welcome the variety—it must conform to probity, transparency and accountability under the law.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Words such as “crooked” and “corrupt” have been used across the Floor of the House in response to the issues before us, yet the police have no reason for action. I just do not understand how one can reconcile corruption as laid out in the forms that my right hon. Friend has pointed out and there being no criminal implications whatsoever. What can be the answer?
Mr Pickles
That of course is a matter for the police—it is not a matter for me—but let me quote from the PwC report about the sale of Poplar town hall: It said:
“The Authority accepted a late bid from the winning bidder after other bids had been opened, creating a risk of bid manipulation…While the difference was small, the Authority did not in fact select the highest bidder, in spite of the external adviser’s recommendation to do so….The winning bidder was, as a matter of fact, connected to a person with other business interests that had an association with the Mayor.”
Would a well-run, accountable, transparent council act like that? I suggest that it would not.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
This report may not be welcome but it is certainly timely, and in its comprehensive nature it correctly identifies the mayor’s parlour as the most likely source of the foul, fetid, reeking stench that has been a blight on a wonderful part of our city. I appreciate that the Secretary of State does not wish to rewrite the handbook of local government, but one problem in Tower Hamlets is the conflation of the roles of executive mayor and chief executive officer, with officers of the local government civil service reporting directly to this joint body. Will the Secretary of State at least consider, as we expand the role of the mayoralty, a system that would avoid that sort of contradiction and that sort of conflation occurring in future?
Mr Pickles
The conflation is made worse by the fact that the head of paid services is an interim appointment. An interim appointee does not have the same authority as someone who has their feet well and truly under the table, which is why, should we decide to use commissioners, it would be a priority to get a person in place who cannot be removed without their permission. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that, should I decide to act, we are setting up a framework whereby things come into being if the principal officer’s advice is ignored. That is where things are important.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Some 20 years ago, I was elected to Lambeth council on a mandate to fight corruption. In that struggle, I found that it is a many-headed hydra and that these cultures are long in the making. Mayor Rahman has been running Tower Hamlets since 2008. Is it not right that there should be accounting as to how long this has been going on and how widespread the problem is?
Mr Pickles
One certainly wants to root out corruption, no matter where it took place and how long ago—that is fundamentally important. But the priority, should I decide to act, is to give the people of Tower Hamlets the opportunity to make a proper informed decision about their council and the mayor whereby, first, their votes would count, secondly, their voices will be heard and, thirdly, fairness will be there.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the misuse of public funds and any hint of corruption or fraud in public office brings the whole of our political system into disrepute and risks undermining public confidence in our democracy, and therefore any such incidents should always be vigorously investigated and the individuals responsible held fully to account?
Mr Pickles
I entirely agree with that. Many of us will have experienced people on the doorstep saying, “All politicians are on the take. They are all on the make. They are all out for themselves.” Many of us in this Chamber can think of our local councillors, people we have seen in politics for years, and realise that the overwhelming majority are people who simply want to put something back into their local community, to do civic service and to contribute to the value of life. The thing about what has happened in Tower Hamlets is that it besmirches even the most benign, hardest-working councillor, in even the remotest part of this country. That is why I will consider acting.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the register as a member of Kettering borough council. Is not one of themes common to what happened in Doncaster, Rotherham and Tower Hamlets the importance, but sometimes the ineffectiveness, of local government scrutiny by councillors in their own authority? What can be done to strengthen the power of scrutiny committees, and raise the profile and esteem of scrutiny work? Instead of councillors always wanting to be in the administration, they should increasingly want to be in the scrutiny side of things, to hold mayors and chairmen of committees to account for making decisions about very large sums?
Mr Pickles
Not for the first time, Mr Speaker, you take the words out of my mouth. My hon. Friend is a member of a very well-run council and he expresses some wise views. I would be interested in hearing his views, and those of any right hon. or hon. Member, as to how we might strengthen scrutiny in local authorities. Given that we have had a while to bed it down, there probably is a time for a re-examination.
Abortion (Sex-Selection)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
13:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the law relating to abortion on the basis of sex-selection; and for connected purposes.
Sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK, and there is widespread confusion over the law, which is why this Bill is needed. The Bill is extremely straightforward, merely clarifying that nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child. It is a shame that this clarification is needed. Successive Health Ministers and even the Prime Minister have been very clear on the matter. They state that abortion for reasons of gender alone is illegal. The Prime Minister has described the practice as “simply appalling”. But these Ministers are being ignored. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which performs around 60,000 abortions a year, flatly disagrees with them. Even today, it is advising women, in one of its leaflets and on its website, that abortion for reasons of foetal sex is not illegal, because the law is “silent on the matter”.
The British Medical Association holds yet another interpretation. It argues that there may be cases where having a child of a particular gender may be
“a legal and ethical justification for an abortion”
on the grounds that the sex of the child may severely affect the pregnant woman’s mental health. I wish to address that point. Some say that the sex of the unborn child can be a legitimate ground for an abortion where a woman is being threatened with abuse if she carries the baby to term. Those who make that argument perhaps fail to realise that, in such tragic cases, it is not the sex of the child that is the ground for the abortion but the threat of abuse, which may constitute a physical or mental risk. I find it deplorable that anyone would be satisfied to provide a sex-selective abortion to a woman who, after she has had it, is then sent back to an abusive partner. What needs to be addressed in those dire circumstances is the abuse itself. Those women need help, and that is one aim of the Bill.
The BMA represents every doctor who permits or performs an abortion and BPAS is the UK’s biggest abortion provider. We cannot sit idly by as it contradicts Ministers over a practice that the Government state is illegal. Urgent clarification from this House is needed.
The main motivation for the Bill, which is more than merely a desire to achieve a consistent policy line on this issue, is that we know that sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK and little is being done to stop them. We know that because a growing number of courageous women are speaking out about their experiences. Here is the story of Rupinder, which is not her real name, told by Jeena International, which works with UK women who have sex-selective abortions.
“Rupinder decided to abort her third child as she was expecting a girl. She was the eldest of six girls and she recalls that each time her mother went to hospital how disappointed everyone was when each time it was a girl. This experience traumatised and consumed her so much that the thought of giving birth to a girl meant disappointment, betrayal and lowered status within the family and the community. Rupinder made a painful decision to abort which she now regrets as she felt that she had no other choice.”
Then there is the experience of Uraj—also not her real name—which might help to persuade those who doubt that son-preference is a problem in this country.
“During a routine ultra-sound scan Uraj’s husband asked what the sex of the baby was and was told a girl. During the drive home, there was pin drop silence in the car. When they arrived home, Uraj started to prepare the evening meal in the kitchen, trying to silence her daughter at the same time as she was crying. She knew her husband was not happy and was angry that she was expecting another girl. She remembers him repeatedly punching and kicking her in the stomach and passing out. When she regained consciousness her husband had walked out and he sent her divorce papers a couple of months later.”
Despite the existence of such stories, there are still those who claim that there is no evidence for the practice. In response to these critics, Rani Bilkhu, the director of Jeena International, said:
“Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying that these women are lying and that our organisation is making things up.”
It is hard to disagree with her, and it is crucial to note that Ms Bilkhu is referring to the brave few who have come forward in the hope that, in so doing, they will help to combat the practice. Their stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Another organisation, Karma Nirvana, which runs a crisis helpline for women in such situations, says:
“We believe the prevalence of sex-selective abortion in the UK is currently under-reported and this has been the case for many years. We have received, and continue to receive, calls from victims who are pressured to identify the gender of the child for the purposes of identifying if it is a girl. Victims express how they are then pressured by family members to abort the child and to give reasons other than sex selection and how they face abuse if they refuse to request this or abort.”
To those who argue that there is no evidence of sex-selective abortion in the UK, I pose a question: what reason do we have to doubt the word of these organisations? If the testimony of these women and those who work with them is not enough, consider the statement of the GP and former BPAS consultant, Dr Vincent Argent, who said he had “no doubt” that this was a problem in the UK and that there were
“an awful lot of covert sex-selective abortions going on.”
Indeed, I am told that some hospitals operate a policy of not telling the women the sex of their baby for fear that it will lead to a sex-selective abortion.
We can no longer ignore the fact that sex-selective abortion is a reality in the UK. Lest anyone think that this is an issue that applies only in certain communities, they should consider the tragic fact that the words “family balancing” are heard with increasing frequency and understanding across the country.
Thankfully, at the moment, countrywide analyses of birth data do not seem to show significant gender imbalances, but sex-selective abortion is clearly happening. Surely we cannot be saying that we will do nothing until the statistics show a national skewing in gender ratios, as in other countries. That would be wrong. How many more women must come forward before we take action? The time at which Government support should have been offered to women such as Rupinder and Uraj passed long ago, which is why I, and other colleagues, have brought this Bill to the House today.
The Bill is sponsored by 11 female MPs from all parts of the House and supported by a large number of other MPs. Today, I wish to place on record my thanks to those MPs, including: the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox). All of them support this Bill and I sincerely thank them for that.
Clause 1 would send a clear signal that abortion for gender is not permissible under UK law, clearing up considerable confusion. Subsection (2) would make it clear that the clarification relates only to sex-selective abortions, therefore putting the Bill squarely in line with the Government’s interpretation of the Abortion Act. Clause 2 obliges the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the law is being upheld. That will enable the Government to think about ways to help such women.
This month, for the first time, the UK has dropped out of the gender equality top 20. It is a further damning indictment of our commitment to female parity that we allow national institutions to contradict the Government on an illegal practice that predominantly affects girls. Even worse, we are choosing to ignore the evidence of women who have gone on the record and who have suffered under this appalling practice. This has gone on long enough. We must now act. As an editorial in The Independent said in January:
“Sex-selective abortion is barbaric and socially destructive.”
This Bill would be a step on the way to addressing this tragic and discriminatory practice and the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. I commend it to the House.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and I divided the House so that it would have the opportunity to express its view. May I put it on the record that both of us support my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the measure? I have been advised by many right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the Government and who abstained, as is usual practice, that they, too, would have supported it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As the House is well aware, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but it is certainly on the record.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As has just been mentioned, there is a convention that Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and members of the shadow Cabinet and their PPSs do not vote on ten-minute rule Bills. Will you confirm to the House that when the Bill receives a Second Reading, there will be a further opportunity to vote on it, and that the usual convention that it should be a conscience vote will apply?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is not a point of order for me to advise people how to vote, but I am sure they will reflect on that when they read Hansard tomorrow.
modern slavery bill (programme) (no. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 8 July 2014 (Modern Slavery Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Table | |
|---|---|
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to transparency in supply chains; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to offences, other than offences of procuring sex for payment; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules, other than new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, overseas domestic workers or prostitution; amendments, other than amendments relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, overseas domestic workers or prostitution. | 4.00 pm on the day on which the proceedings are commenced. |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority; amendments relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to overseas domestic workers; amendments relating to overseas domestic workers; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to prostitution; amendments relating to prostitution; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | 6.00 pm on that day. |
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.—(John Penrose.)
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—Duty on large UK companies to report efforts to eradicate modern slavery and forced labour—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than 5 October 2015,—
(a) make regulations under section 416(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about modern slavery and forced labour in the supply chain for which the company is responsible, or
(b) lay before Parliament a report explaining why no such regulations have been made.
(2) Regulations made under section (1)(a) must be in force in relation to quoted companies by 6 January 2016 and in relation to large private companies as the Secretary of State believes to be appropriate by 2 January 2018.
(3) Subsection (1)(a) is complied with if regulations are made containing provision in relation to the company’s reporting of work in the following areas—
(a) accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence;
(b) investigation, monitoring and auditing of modern slavery and forced labour risks in the UK and throughout their global supply chains;
(c) support and access to remedy for victims of forced labour and modern slavery; and
(d) training of staff and suppliers, access to expertise and advice.
(4) No regulations made under this section shall apply to small companies as defined by section 381 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).”
New clause 15—Legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to ensure that a person benefiting from an offence under section 1 or 2 of this Act committed by a third party shall have committed an offence where—
(a) the third party acted for that person’s benefit; and
(b) their lack of supervision or control made possible for committing of the offence by the third party.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward measures along the lines set out in EU Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings.
New clause 14—Ban on importation of goods produced by slavery or forced labour—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have the power to prohibit the import at any point of entry to the United Kingdom of any good, ware, article, or product mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country that can be demonstrably shown to have been produced by slavery, forced labour, child labour or with the involvement of human trafficking.
(2) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the enforcement of this provision;
(b) co-ordinate with and issue guidance to the Treasury, HMRC, devolved authorities and any other relevant public authority in relation to the exercise by them of their powers and responsibilities under this Clause; and
(c) have a duty to publish and maintain information on banned goods including a publicly available list of products which there is a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced, or manufactured in the circumstances described in section (1).
(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a process whereby a petition can be made by any person, public authority or organisation who has reason to believe that goods produced in the circumstances in section (1) are being or are likely to be imported into the UK to communicate theses concerns to the relevant authority. Every such communication shall contain—
(a) a full statement of reasons for the claim;
(b) a detailed description or example of the product; and
(c) all relevant information regarding the production of the good.”
This would allow for the banning of the import of any product produced by slavery, convict, forced or indentured labour, including child labour.
Government amendment 62.
Karen Bradley
It is a pleasure to open this important debate. Modern slavery in supply chains is an issue that this Government take extremely seriously and have been considering very closely for some time. Tackling modern slavery is not only about catching the perpetrators; it is about making sure that we as consumers and businesses do not inadvertently fuel the demand for slave labour. We do not want businesses in the UK to have any connection to these abhorrent crimes, and UK consumers should not be put in the position where they inadvertently buy goods that could have been produced by individuals who are abused and enslaved.
The Government have been listening carefully to the views of NGOs, businesses and parliamentarians on this issue. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members here today have been campaigning on it for a long time, and their contributions and insight have been invaluable in developing our thinking. I would particularly like to thank the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill, who collected such valuable evidence, and the chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), for his leadership. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who have both tabled private Members’ Bills on this topic and have campaigned so tirelessly.
The Government have always been committed to encouraging businesses to take action on modern slavery, but I and the Home Secretary wanted to make sure that any further legislative changes were of real value and would not confuse existing arrangements. Having considered carefully the evidence and calls for change, I believe that we can improve the legislative framework further to encourage business to take action. That is why I am extremely pleased that we have brought forward new clause 11, which will require organisations carrying on a business in the UK above a certain size threshold to disclose each year what they have done to ensure that there is no modern slavery in their supply chains or their organisation. Once businesses are required to disclose what they are doing to tackle modern slavery, consumers, shareholders and campaigners will have a better understanding of what action each business is taking, and can call for more action if they think more is needed.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister is introducing this clause. May I ask two questions? When companies report, will the Government comment? Will the new independent anti-slavery commissioner be expected to comment and try to raise the standards of firms?
Karen Bradley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. Later in my remarks I will come to how we envisage the provision working. I hope that will address his concerns.
Many businesses are already taking steps to eliminate modern slavery. Once it is clear what activity major businesses are undertaking, we expect that public pressure and competition between businesses will encourage those who have not taken decisive steps to do so. Introducing this measure is an important step, and that is why we want to get it right. The provision does not specify the size of business on the face of the Bill. That is because we genuinely want to listen to businesses and stakeholders about the best possible approach and we will formally consult on the threshold level.
Our thoughts are that this provision should apply to large companies in the first instance. We will consult fully on the threshold and then set the threshold through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that Parliament has the final say on the initial threshold, and can subsequently review and amend it over time, if required. We will also produce statutory guidance to accompany this provision, setting out the kinds of information that might be included in a disclosure, so that companies understand and have the support they need to comply. Again, we will consult on what information should be in the guidance, working with businesses and other interested parties so that they have a good understanding of what information might be used to comply with the disclosure requirement.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I am glad that the measure is being included in the Bill. Can my hon. Friend give us an idea of the time scale involved in the consultations and when we might see the resulting legislation?
Karen Bradley
My right hon. Friend deserves credit for campaigning tirelessly on this and other issues related to modern slavery. I will come on later to how we envisage the process working. We are considering an appropriate timetable. As he will appreciate, we have to get the balance right between letting both Houses have their say and the need to make progress.
Sir John Randall
I look forward to hearing further details. We are all aware that over the weekend, for example, there was a furore about T-shirts. That emphasises that many companies think they are free of slavery, but they are not. We must sure that we get on with the measure, because it is important.
Karen Bradley
I take my right hon. Friend’s comments and will ensure that they are considered in the process. He is right that one of the difficulties and one of the reasons that we have considered the matter carefully is that many businesses are trying hard to comply, but we need to help them and support them to do so. That is why it was vital that we spent time consulting businesses to make sure that we came up with an effective approach that would make a difference.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister has not spelled out any dates. The matter has gone through the Joint Committee, it has been debated and there have been various hearings. New clause 11 says that the Secretary of State “may issue guidance”. What we are not getting is any sense of the operational requirements on a company such as Tesco, which was benefiting from slave labour in the fishing industry in Thailand. What would companies be required to do operationally under this guidance?
Karen Bradley
I will come, as I said, to how we envisage the measure working. My hon. Friend reflects exactly the balance that we are trying to achieve between getting on as quickly as possible and letting Parliament have its say to make sure that we reflect what Parliament wishes in this respect.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to the proposed amendment to the Companies Act. Does she accept that when Parliament put forward a human rights disclosure requirement, it was plainly the intention that it should also include supply chains?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend, who was such a committed member of the Public Bill Committee, makes an important point. The Government have already legislated to require companies to disclose in their annual reports under the Companies Act that they respect human rights throughout their business. We wanted to ensure that there was a further requirement on slavery, so we ensured that there was full transparency on slavery in supply chains in addition to the requirement that we have already included in the Companies Act.
Mr Frank Field
I take the Minister’s point about the Government’s approach being superior to our proposal to amend the Companies Act. One of the advantages of her approach is that the proposed legislation will cover those companies that are large but are owned offshore. We want to bring them within the ambit of the Act, because they are really important traders in this country.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. This is about ensuring that any company doing business in the UK makes transparent disclosures on the action it has taken on slavery in its supply chains. We want UK consumers to understand what actions have been taken by the businesses they transact with so that they can then put pressure on them if they feel that not enough is being doing. The Government will be able to help those companies through the guidance we issue on the action they may take that would give consumers the reassurance they need. We have also improved on the California model by capturing any commercial organisation that produces not only goods but services.
We are also looking at public sector procurement, recognising that modern slavery could happen anywhere. All public sector suppliers are already required to comply with relevant human rights and employment law, and EU procurement rules require contracting authorities to exclude suppliers that have been convicted of certain offences. Social responsibility information is also sought annually from Government suppliers, including details of the steps taken and planned by suppliers in the areas of ethical procurement and supply chain management.
I will now turn to new clause 5, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, which would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 416(4) of the Companies Act 2006 so that quoted companies and certain large private companies are required to include in their directors’ reports information relating to modern slavery and forced labour in the supply chain. It is fair to say that we are all trying to achieve the same aim—ensuring that the supply chains of UK businesses are free from slave labour—but the ways in which we are seeking to do that may well differ. In considering this important issue, we have looked at a number of approaches, including amending the Companies Act and, in particular, the Companies Act amendment proposed by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee.
I believe that introducing a specific provision in the Modern Slavery Bill, rather than in the Companies Act, sends out a clear signal that the UK will not tolerate any form of modern slavery. It also explicitly raises the profile of the issue by ensuring that the provisions are front and centre of what the Bill and this Government are trying to achieve: to stamp out modern slavery in all its forms. I think that all of us in this House are trying to achieve that. Those who disclose little or no action risk their reputation and, ultimately, their profits.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—he, too, served on the Public Bill Committee—would ban the import of any product produced by slavery, forced or child labour or human trafficking. As I have said, I believe that slavery in all its forms is abhorrent. The provisions we have brought forward to increase transparency in supply chains are both effective and proportionate. It would simply not be feasible for UK agencies to police the import of goods on the basis of whether they had been produced using slave labour. We need those trading with companies in other jurisdictions to apply due diligence and take decisive action where they believe that slave labour is being used. Waiting until the point when products are being imported into the UK is simply too late. That is why it is for businesses to take action to check their supply chains and for the Government to influence and encourage other Governments to do more, such as by improving the application of their employment laws or their approach to human rights issues.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for working so hard to introduce new clause 11, which I very much welcome. Will she cover the point raised in an earlier intervention about the role of the anti-slavery commissioner? As she will know, the terms of reference were discussed in Committee. It would be useful to know whether the Government think that the commissioner’s remit will include looking at company reports and assessing how effective they are.
Karen Bradley
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and for all his work, not only in the Public Bill Committee but in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—he has truly lived this issue for most of this year, so I know how committed he is. I think that policing the measure is a matter for us all. In particular, the non-governmental organisations that work on victim protection—I discussed this with them last week—have such an important role to play in bringing to our attention those companies that they believe are not doing the compliance and disclosure that we all expect. We will move on to the specifics of the anti-slavery commissioner’s role later in the debate. My emphasis for the commissioner is on identifying victims and then ensuring that we get prosecutions in order to protect victims. The role is not so much about policing the supply chain measure. Obviously, as the commissioner’s role develops, we may see new issues come to the fore.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for listening to Members on both sides of the House regarding the supply chain issue and bringing forward this new clause. Does she agree that the strongest policing of the issue will come from the large companies at the head of supply chains, because they have the infrastructure really to do due diligence and stamp out slavery down the line? The proportionate way in which she is introducing this, with company size being a factor, is one of the strongest signals we could possibly send to the wider world that we want no part of it in our supply chains.
Karen Bradley
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. She, too, was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—there is definitely great experience and knowledge of the issue in the Chamber today. Her work on the issue has been of great help to the Government. She is right that this is about the large businesses. When the Government discussed how best to secure this, it was the large businesses that were keen to see the level playing field, with everyone crossing the line together. She is absolutely right.
Mr Burrowes
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. This whole measure can be seen not as a burden for businesses, but as an empowering measure, because all responsible businesses will be able to see how they can root out and eradicate slavery. Is there a way in which we could move on in the timing of this measure and on enforcement by ensuring that everyone can see those businesses that are disclosing and complying, and by shaming those that are not? We could do that straight away on the website. Perhaps the anti-slavery commissioner could have their own portal to allow that to be communicated so that we could name and shame in an easy and accountable way.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right to say that this process does not need to wait for the legislation to come in. Businesses can start to make these disclosures now; there is nothing to stop them doing that. The point of the Bill is to make sure that there is a level playing field and that all are crossing the line together. He makes some very interesting suggestions that I will reflect on.
Mr Frank Field
Will not successful disclosures involve some companies that, having found they are guilty of having slavery in the supply chain, rather than just sacking the suppliers, work with them on paying the workers proper wages? I would not want this measure to perpetuate poverty by pushing slavery further underground. If the public are to take a really rounded view on these reports, they should praise companies that find they are using slave labour and then go on to say what they are doing about it.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is about getting transparency in supply chains. On the very first day I started as a Minister, the first thing I was lobbied on was transparency in supply chains, and it became clear that this is all about finding out what is going on—shining a light. As he says, there may well be slavery within these supply chains, and if so action can be taken to deal with that.
I would add that in my experience of meeting Governments overseas where there may be concerns about human rights abuses, one of the strongest and most powerful tools to convince those Governments that they need to take action is that their businesses will not be able to trade with businesses here in Britain because we expect to be sure that there is no slavery in the supply chain, that human rights are not being abused through the supply chain, and that when consumers buy goods in Britain they can be confident that all action that possibly can have been taken has been taken to eradicate these practices from the supply chain. That is what transparency does—it shines that light and gives that clarity to the consumer.
New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay regulations to ensure that individuals who have benefited from modern slavery that has been perpetrated by a third party are criminally liable where their lack of supervision made the modern slavery offence possible. We do of course want business to take action to eliminate modern slavery from supply chains, and, as we have discussed, the Government are bringing forward a legislative measure to achieve this. However, I am not persuaded that a potentially very broad criminal liability in this area is the best approach. I want these provisions to drive a change in behaviour. That is why I firmly believe that the Government’s amendment to introduce a bespoke provision into the Bill is the right one. As I said, it goes much wider than the provisions in the California Act by including all sectors, not just retail and manufacturing, and the provision of services, as well as goods, but it does so in a way that does not create undue burdens for business.
I fully acknowledge the good intentions behind right hon. and hon. Members’ amendments. However, in the light of discussions and the work that the Government have undertaken in this area, and the effective provision that we are proposing today, I hope that they will feel able to withdraw them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Government’s new clause 11 and to speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. It is very good news that the Government have finally moved on this matter in the final stages of the Bill. Not including supply chains was the single biggest omission from the draft Bill and the Bill introduced to this House, and it is good to see that this important concession has been secured from the Government.
I congratulate all those who have campaigned on this issue, including my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and, on the Government Benches, the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has tabled two new clauses that seek to extend the responsibilities of UK companies towards those who work in the supply chains, including compensation for victims and a ban on the importation of products produced using slavery.
Outside this House, a huge number of groups have also campaigned on the issue. I pay particular tribute to the Walk Free Foundation, the Ethical Trading Initiative, and the British Retail Consortium. I would like personally to thank all the groups and companies that I have met in order to inform Labour’s position, including Next, Primark, the Co-operative Group, Focus On Labour Exploitation, and Amnesty International.
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady is making powerful points about what teeth the guidance will have. Does she think that there are lessons to be drawn from when this House debated the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, when it was believed that the behaviour of the banks would be influenced by reputational damage, a belief that was found to be false in the light of their future conduct? There seems to be a reliance on the idea that guidance in itself will have a deterrent effect on major corporations, but that has to be backed up with some teeth.
Diana Johnson
I could not agree more. That is why it was important that I set out why new clause 5 deals in detail with the kind of issues that need to be clearly addressed in secondary legislation. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Just to recap: we support the Government’s new clause 11. Obviously, we want to wait and see what happens with the secondary legislation as it is introduced. It is surprising that the Government have gone against the Joint Committee’s recommendation and the evidence presented by several large companies arguing against stand-alone regulation, although the Government have now seen fit to pursue that. That poses particular problems for enforcement. I am sure the Minister has seen the briefing from the coalition of groups campaigning for change, which states:
“Monitoring of compliance with the provision needs to be taken seriously as this will be central to its success in driving change. We are concerned that the provision is currently weak on how monitoring and enforcement will be undertaken. The Government’s approach relies on a civil enforcement procedure by the Secretary of State, which means that in reality the measure would be unlikely to deter any businesses other than those who would in any case seek to comply on a voluntary basis.”
Sir Andrew Stunell
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I hope she will be able to wet her whistle while I speak. Does she agree that the monitoring process could make a start through the anti-slavery commissioner taking a more active role in observing and supervising company reports?
Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Time is limited this afternoon, but I hope there will more discussion in the other place about extending the role of the independent anti-slavery commissioner to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
In the Minister’s closing remarks, I want assurances that whatever is proposed will apply to all large companies; that the regulations will be detailed enough to allow comparability; and that there will be a clear enforcement mechanism so that consumers, investors and NGOs can see who has complied and know that they can trust the report they have read.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and, in particular, to support the principles in new clause 11. Some good points have also been made about new clause 5. As was evident on Second Reading, the House has coalesced around the principle of providing transparency of supply chains. It has taken a while to get there. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for the work she has done and the leadership she has shown in bringing together the Government in this way. That takes some doing.
The importance of the integrity of basic human rights in supply chains has not been recognised until now, unlike—shamefully, in some ways—the integrity of products in supply chains of hardwood, tobacco and pharma- ceuticals. Today represents a big and important step change in recognising the integrity of those human rights.
New clause 11 covers the principles of accountability and reporting, which are also addressed by new clause 5. We can deal with the qualms and queasiness surrounding burdens by saying that any responsible business will welcome new clause 11 as an empowering measure that can help them disclose any issues and root out slavery.
I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). When I said that we should name and shame, I did not mean that this is about good guys and bad guys. This is about disclosure. We should take a rounded approach. There needs to be full, transparent disclosure all the way along the chain so that everyone can shine a light to see what is happening and then deal with it appropriately. By shining that light all the way down and up, the most responsible businesses will expose some things that they are not happy about. They will then be able to say, robustly and confidently, “We’ve done that.” We should ensure disclosure by naming those who are disclosing in a proper and full way, and shaming those who are not disclosing, which is an issue of concern.
Once this measure is on the statute book, compliance and enforcement must be effective. From a light-touch point of view, I agree that transparency and accountability can happen through individual company websites, but we need to go further and enable all concerned to access information centrally. That is why I suggested in an intervention that the independent anti-slavery commissioner should have a portal. The responsibility for maintaining it would not be the commissioner’s alone, but people would be able to look at that independent website and see the names of those companies that have complied with the manner, spirit and intention of the statutory guidance. That is important and I think it would help. Given the timing involved with this measure and the need to get the office of the anti-slavery commissioner up and running, it is important that we make progress, possibly through the Home Office website, ahead of any parliamentary processes, including secondary legislation, and give people the opportunity to show that they are very much on the side of full disclosure.
I must say that I have one or two concerns. I am concerned about whether new clause 11 may be unduly complex, particularly in relation to enforcement via civil enforcement injunctions. Are such injunctions to expose the fact that a company is not up to speed on disclosure, or are they to get to the root problem of exposing its supply chain? The provision may be unduly bureaucratic and costly, and it may well not serve the purpose that everyone wants.
Mr Frank Field
Could not other countries follow our lead by simply taking new clause 11 into their legislation?
Mr Burrowes
Other countries could do that, but they have different means of enforcement, which cannot be simply transferred. However, they could certainly take a lead by adopting much of what new clause 11 says.
Sir Andrew Stunell
My hon. Friend has done valiant work on this topic. I agree with him that the enforcement angle needs more attention, but does he not agree with me that new clause 11 takes us a huge step forward? We should congratulate the Government on that, and now invite them to take the next step and get the enforcement right.
Mr Burrowes
I do not want to understate my praise—this is a huge step forward—but we, as legislators, want to ensure that what we approve is really fit for purpose and has the necessary teeth. There are other elements that can be done without legislation: the issue of international corporate governance goes beyond legislation, and it can best be dealt with by sharing good practice internationally.
I will finish on a very positive note. Today, we can say that British law is no longer just concerned about the sustainability of the wood in our furniture, but is more concerned about the freedom and safety of the millions of men, women and children involved in making that furniture.
Mr Frank Field
I, too, want to pursue the theme just followed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) in congratulating the Government, but drawing attention to just how important new clause 11 is. The Home Secretary made it very plain in her first article in The Sunday Times that she wanted a clause on supply chains in the Bill. I therefore congratulate her, her very able Minister and the person in No. 10 who changed his mind at this very late stage in the Bill’s passage. Heaven rejoices at the sinner who repents even at the eleventh hour, and some credit should go to the Prime Minister for changing his mind on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has played a valiant role in spearheading our approach to the Bill and has borne all the heat of the day on it. However, I think we all accept, whatever efforts we have put in, that the legislation is the easy part of the process. The next part will be very hard—to get a genuinely mass consumer movement of people who do not buy goods if they are not kitemarked as being free of slavery.
As we draw stumps on this House’s proceedings on the Bill, it is important to commend it, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has just done—it will not just be a good Bill, but a world leader when it leaves the other place—but the real work will be on enforcement and on convincing consumers that they have the vital job of not buying goods that are tainted by slavery.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), I want to acknowledge the Minister’s efforts in making good the serious deficit in the Bill, but also those of the right hon. Gentleman and many other colleagues during the pre-legislative scrutiny, on Second Reading and ever since. Those efforts by him and the many others who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee have reflected the very strong concern of some of the groups that have worked so hard to support and promote the Bill and that understand the issue so well.
I am one of those who can take yes for an answer, now that the Government have made good on this matter. However, I would say, “Yes, up to a point, but maybe it could be improved.” I believe that the Bill could go further. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who tabled new clause 5, has shown that there are important issues. The headings given in subsection (3) are clear and useful, and it is right for them to be in primary legislation, rather than left to remote chance by way of secondary legislation.
New clause 5 is also important in what it would do with respect to the Companies Act. I understand what the Minister said about not only using that Act as the way to deal with the problem, but how it brings in very clear corporate responsibilities. In that context, it also highlights relevant professional obligations, which would give real meaning to what the Government and others are trying to encourage in relation to ethical investment, and in relation to the understandings we should all have about any investments—all the new pension provision and everything else—for which we are the source of the money.
The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has referred to financial services legislation. We have said that more and more needs to be done to ensure full and due transparency in that context. We should complement such provisions in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister—I support her new clause 11—can see her way to accepting new clause 5 as well.
I tabled two of the new clauses in this group of amendments. The Minister has addressed new clause 15, but let me point out that throughout the gestation of the Bill, we have been told that it is meant to be world leading. New clause 15 is an attempt to bring in the clear standards in EU directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings. If the Government are at pains to consolidate and codify much existing law in the Bill and to present it as world-leading legislation, the question arises whether we should not also use it to show that we are at least matching and adhering to international standards and obligations, including EU ones. My clause on the legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery would be consistent with the EU directive, and I see no reason why we should not explicitly ensure that our legislation is up to that standard.
New clause 14 seeks to go further on questions of the supply chain and sourcing, and the possible use of slavery or exploited labour. We are meant to be discussing world-leading legislation, but the new clause reflects legislation that was introduced 84 years ago in the United States of America. We hear a lot about Californian legislation on supply chains, but the Tariff Act 1930 in America gave power to prohibit the importation of
“goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country…by forced labour.”
The new clause is therefore hardly a radical view or innovation, and the Californian legislation—referred to often in debates on the Bill—exists in wider US legislation.
New clause 14 does not just rely on language in the 1930 legislation, which puts responsibility on the Secretary of State at the Treasury to prescribe the necessary regulations, but it also reflects the essence of the code of federal regulations in the United States, which establishes the process whereby anyone can petition the Department of Homeland Security. That explicitly provides for:
“Any person outside the Customs Service who has reason to believe that merchandise produced in the circumstances mentioned is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States.”
The United States legislation does not guarantee that the state will fully police all those issues, but it indicates that it will respond to legitimate petitions or legitimately presented evidence that gives rise to concern, and that it will act. Legislators in the US have ensured that the state reserves that power to act to prohibit the import of a good.
In the Government’s new clause 11, the onus is—understandably—on companies, which have to be able to show what they are doing regarding their supply chains. We wanted supply chains included in the Bill not as a badge for companies, but as a shield for workers in developing countries and other places—including the UK—who could be exploited. The difference is between this measure being a corporate badge or a shield for human beings. If companies have only to present what they say they are doing, and consumers then make their judgment and choice, why—if we are legislating for company responsibility but also for consumer responsibility and activism—is there still no rule for the state or Government?
New clause 14 clearly states:
“The Secretary of State shall have the power to prohibit the import at any point of entry to the United Kingdom of any good, ware, article, or product mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country that can be demonstrably shown to have been produced by slavery, forced labour, child labour or with the involvement of human trafficking.”
By rejecting that new clause we are saying that even if exploitation can be demonstrably shown, we do not want the state or any Secretary of State to be able to act against that. Whether in relation to the T-shirts that were in the newspapers recently, or anything else, we are saying that when such issues are raised, we do not want anybody or any part of the state to have responsibility for saying, “The nature of those products in terms of the quality of the supply chain is clear, but it is nobody’s job to move to do anything other that what companies are inspired to do, or what consumers are mobilised to do.”
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to stand up on Report and commend the Government for the progress we have made, but let us be clear that we are a little way along the journey. It is not as if the exploiters of women and children—whether for cheap labour, slave labour or sexual exploitation—are going to quake at the knees because we are passing this Bill, so let us be honest about that. As we try to close the loopholes, increase vigilance, and impose discipline on the trade that the exploiters are involved in, they will change the way they run that trade.
I spent time with the Serious Organised Crime Agency as part of the Government’s great police service parliamentary scheme. It showed us a model that it has drawn up of much of the trafficking that goes on throughout Europe and that it is trying to combat. It looked like a five-dimensional or 10-dimensional spaceship, and had been drawn up by the London School of Economics to show exactly how such organisations work. They are multinational and beyond any discipline; they have no morals and think only about the money at the end of the chain.
In reality, for many people at the “murky” end of the supply chain—that is how it was described by some of the witnesses from whom the Joint Committee took evidence—that is where the abuse takes place. To reach into that is very difficult as we get further and further from the first payment of money from a customer to a company, and the first payment from a company to its supplier, who supplies in a nice neat box with a nice label—it might be a nice T-shirt, for example, that costs £45 but is made by people who get paid 62p an hour and are locked in the factory and not allowed out in case, as the owner said, “They might come back hung-over and not able to work well the next day”. That is what we are dealing with.
We have made some strides, and many people were mentioned in the Joint Committee and the Bill Committee. Some, however, will not be mentioned—the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has unfortunately left her place, but she took an interest in this matter and went to see the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to talk about the need to include this measure on the supply chain, at a time when we were getting the resistance referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). People of good will saw that a Bill that did not refer to supply chains was not in the spirit of the efforts that have been made over the past 10 years by people such as Anthony Steen and the Human Trafficking Foundation, and the EU Parliamentarians against Human Trafficking, who were involved in trying to deal with an international, pan-European and pan-world trade.
When I saw new clause 11, which followed a generous promise by the Minister in the final Committee sitting to introduce a measure on supply chains, I was impressed. It is fairly thorough. There is a lot of bureaucratic writing that I would not necessarily have put into my Bill, not knowing how the mechanisms of the Government’s legislation works in all its depth, but part after part reflects the matters I referred to in my private Member’s Bill in 2012. I thank the Minister and all those who supported that measure for what has been done. We are on a journey and we have a long way to go, even if we pass the Bill and it is effective. We know that there are reservations. They will come up again in the other place to deal with the things that are not dealt with in the amendments and new clauses tabled here.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that some people will seek to avoid the provisions, but does he accept that that is the case with all forms of criminality, and that the Bill gives us a platform, for the first time, to tackle some of the worst cases of modern-day slavery?
Michael Connarty
I have absolutely no reservation in supporting that as a principle. We are doing the right thing. We have set together a number of pieces of legislation in the Bill that will deal with those who will wish to avoid its provisions, and I will mention some of the measures in new clause 11 that I think are effective and welcome.
I am glad that Government amendment 62 says there will be an affirmative resolution for regulations, because it is right that we will go into a Statutory Instrument Committee with them, and that we are given the chance to debate them with the Minister. I will mention some of the things I hope we will discuss when we get there.
New clause 5, which was tabled by my hon. Friends on the use of the Companies Act 2006, is something we should look at, because it is right. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) made the point that we need as many tools as possible as well as the court of public and business displeasure when people do not act as we want. Therefore, we should look at how we can put some firmer things in the Bill, but I think that the big change in the Government’s thinking is to be welcomed, because they are using the principle of the California Act, which is much wider than the Companies Act.
By the way, I notice that the British Retail Consortium wants to include smaller companies. When I introduced my Bill, I used the figure of £100 million. In California, the figure was $100 million, and my amendment used £60 million, which is the equivalent. Clearly, quoted companies under the Companies Act are likely to be well outwith that in size. We want to respond to that and use the same reporting structures as the Act would use.
I tabled amendment (a) to new clause 11 because we should look at international standards. I have respect for the Secretary of State and the civil servants who advise her, but international organisations have looked at the issues again and again. In my Bill, I had a reference to the 1999 International Labour Organisation convention No. 182, which is about the definition of the worst form of child labour, because there can be difficulties with that in other countries.
I will tell a quick tale. When I was 10, I went out and found a job as a milk boy. I wanted to go out and become useful to my family. My brother had a job delivering rolls. I got 10 shillings—50p now—and about 1 shilling and sixpence in tips a week. I walked from the centre of town home and gave my mother 11 shillings and sixpence for the family budget. There were five of us and basically one labourer’s wage. It was not easy to survive. Was that child labour? I did not feel exploited. I loved it—I loved every bit of it. I am sure it is why I am so healthy now in my older age. I ran and ran, and perhaps built up the infrastructure for a long life. It was great and I loved it.
In other situations, people say, “If a woman takes a child with her when she is making bricks in India, at what age does that become a breach of child labour? When is that child able to contribute to a very low family budget and when do they want to do so?” The ILO has looked at those questions but we have not looked at them in great detail in the House. Hopefully, the ILO’s considerations will be used in the recommendations made under new clause 11(8), which is about giving guidance on the information that should be reported.
There is a bit missing from this Bill that was in my Bill: my clause 3 said that there should be some way of ensuring that the company that is found to use such labour provides assistance and protection for the victims of slavery. The guidance should continue that. It should say what a company should do as a benchmark. We should not just say, “We’ll not use that company any more,” but do something about it.
Mention was made of consumers. When I went around talking to people in supermarket networks—Mumdex is in many supermarkets in my area—they had a concern about slavery and the things that bothered their conscience, but they said, “If you’ve got four or five kids coming up to the summer, you buy the cheapest stuff you can get that is going to last the summer, because most of it’s going to be thrown in the bin by the end of the summer anyway. It is the company’s job to make sure I am not buying something that is contaminated by slave labour.” That is totally right. Perhaps some people who go up the high street and buy very highly priced goods ask themselves about that, but most people in my constituents’ environment will not.
I therefore welcome new clause 11(9). It is fantastic to see. If hon. Members read what is on the net about the Bill, they will see that people in Scotland think it has nothing to do with them. They think it is an English Bill. People should look at the new clauses to realise that it is a trans-border, transnational Bill. Subsection (9) states that people in Scotland can take an organisation to the Court of Session to enforce the fact that it is not carrying out the duty in the Bill. That will be very welcome.
I do not know whether the new clause covers Northern Ireland—I had that question in mind because it does not mention Northern Ireland. Do people there go to the Court of Session? Where do they go? Do people in Northern Ireland go to the High Court in England if they feel that a company in Northern Ireland is not doing something they should be doing? I am grateful to the Minister for including Scotland. That is an important measure.
We are making progress and I welcome the proposals. I hope the Government are listening when the Bill goes to the other place because they could add other things to it.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I, too, was a milk boy, and a butcher’s boy and a paper boy, in my younger days. My hon. Friend has raised the subject of tips many times over the years. My wife and I booked a cruise two years ago through a British travel agent company. The cruise sailed from Southampton. When we spoke to the staff on the cruise, they said they did not receive any wages, and that they only got tips. If that is not modern slavery, I do not know what is. I was not fortunate enough to be on the Joint Committee. Does the Bill cover that?
Michael Connarty
I could not quote the legal detail, but I would think that if a company based in the UK did things like that, it could be taken to the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court in England and found not to be complying with the law.
As a Scot and as an economist, I read Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”. It talks about comparative advantage, but before that, he wrote a document about the morals of competition. The good thing about the Bill is that it says, “We believe in competition.” We are not talking about pricing people out of the market entirely. We are saying that it must be morally justifiable as well as economically justifiable.
I want to finish with a response to one of my constituents, who, when it was reported that we were discussing the Bill, wrote in an e-mail blog: “What’s that got to do with creating employment in Scotland and your constituency?” The reality is that, if we can stop people using cheap labour, and particularly slave labour at the worst end, we give British companies the chance to compete better. That is why the BRC is behind the Bill. If there is a voluntary code, the bad companies just will not comply, whereas if there is a mandatory code and if we can take people to law to enforce it, everyone must do the right thing or be held to account.
Karen Bradley
I will not detain the House for long as we have other matters to come on to, but I want to make a few closing remarks.
This has been a very good debate and I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I think we can safely say that all those who have made contributions are great campaigners on this issue. They all deserve credit for getting us to this point, and they have changed the views of so many.
Stephen Barclay
I am sure the Minister is aware that one of the common tactics used by banks when subject to regulatory action is to get rid of middle management, settle with the regulator at the earliest opportunity and profit from the 30% discount as a way of mitigating the fact that they have been caught out by enforcement breaches without actually changing their culture. Is there not a risk of the same thing happening with these injunctions?
Karen Bradley
I hope that businesses will act in a way that deals with this problem. That is what businesses told us they want to do. They want to ensure there is no slavery in their supply chains, and consumers and others want to see that too. I hope that will be the case.
Mark Durkan
On consumer action, what are the Government’s intentions with regard to public procurement, because the public purse will be a significant consumer? On sourcing and supplying, will there be a Government public procurement standard for companies?
Karen Bradley
I addressed that point briefly in my opening comments, but I will come on to it again in a moment. I will just finish the point about enforcement.
The courts can force companies to disclose, but that is different from the issue that some companies may make disclosures that consumers, shareholders and campaigners feel show that inadequate steps are being taken to eliminate slavery from supply chains. The courts can act if no disclosure is made, but there is action that civil society can take if it feels that companies are not making appropriate disclosures. The Government believe it is for civil society to put pressure on businesses that are not doing enough to eliminate modern slavery from their supply chains. The Government’s new clause makes this as easy as possible by ensuring that disclosures are easily accessible. The link to disclosure must be in a prominent place on a business’s website home page.
Before coming on to public sector procurement, I would like to address the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on the extent of the new clause. I can confirm that the new clause on supply chains will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is made plain by later amendments to be taken later. I want to put it on the record that I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Executive and all the devolved Administrations for the excellent work we have done together to ensure that this provision can extend to the entire UK. He will know, from our discussions in Committee, that there were points on which we needed agreement—not just on this matter, but on many others as well. I am pleased that we have made so much progress. It was important throughout that this was not Westminster imposing on the devolved Administrations. Action has been taken because the devolved Administrations wanted to take that action.
On public sector procurement, all public sector suppliers are required to comply with applicable law, including relevant human rights and employment rights law. UK public procurement policy is that social, environmental or ethical issues can be taken into account in the procurement process where that is relevant, proportionate and non-discriminatory. We expect public sector procurement to be as transparent as other procurement, which is covered elsewhere. We will consult on this matter, and I encourage people who are concerned to respond to the consultation. It should be noted that whatever action is taken will be taken only following the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has its say. We will ensure that points are put forward.
Sir Andrew Stunell
The Minister speaks very well on Parliament giving affirmative support to these proposals. Does she envisage that being given before the first week of May next year? [Interruption.]
Karen Bradley
The shadow Minister makes the point that perhaps that needs to be by the end of March, if the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether it will happen before the general election. I cannot answer that question at the moment. Perhaps I could write to him on the specifics.
I am delighted that new clause 11 will amend the Bill to include the measure on transparency in supply chains that so many have worked so tirelessly for, for so long. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division. I look forward to this measure being part of the world-class Bill we all wish to create.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Offence of child exploitation
‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a child.
(2) It shall be such an offence even if there was no threat or use of violence, other forms of coercion, deception or any abuse of a position of vulnerability.
(3) A child may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—
(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the child; or
(b) the child has attempted to escape from the situation.
(4) The consent or apparent consent of the child to the exploitation is irrelevant.
(5) “Child Exploitation” includes but is not limited to, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation; the exploitation of labour or services including begging or practices similar to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour; the exploitation of or for criminal activities including benefit fraud; the removal of organs; forced or servile marriage or enforced surrogacy; exploitation for unlawful adoption; and exploitation by enforced drugs smuggling, manufacture, production or distribution.”—(Diana Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Offence of exploitation—
‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a person by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person.
(2) A person may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—
(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the person; or
(b) the person has attempted to escape from the situation.
(3) The consent or apparent consent of the person of the exploitation is irrelevant where any of the means set forth in section 9(1) has been used.’
New clause 24—Human trafficking—
‘(1) Any person who for the purpose of exploiting a person or persons—
(a) recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a person including by exchange or transfer of control over that or those persons;
(b) by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person,
commits an offence of human trafficking.
(2) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsection 2(1)(a) or to the exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subsection 2(1)(b) have been used.’
New clause 20—Control of assets related to modern slavery offences—
‘(1) In section 40 (Restraint orders) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court shall presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.”
(2) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to—
(a) presume a freezing order will be granted within 24 hours in respect of assets where the court is satisfied that—
(i) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that some of those assets have been obtained as a result of an offence under this Act, and
(ii) those assets are over and above those reasonably required for living and business expenses.
(b) confer on the police power to issue a notice on financial advisers and institutions placing a duty of care on those institutions in respect of movement of assets that might hinder an investigation into an offence under this Act.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to provide that assets recovered in respect of an offence under this Act shall be paid to one or more of—
(a) the police and/or,
(b) the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and
(c) the victim or victims of the offence.
(4) The court will require an asset declaration from anyone subject to a restraint order within 24 hours in respect of any financial interests in assets held in whole or in part in the United Kingdom and in overseas territories. In the event of a false declaration, this will be treated as an aggregated factor in the setting of any future penalty.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless laid before in draft and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’
New clause 21—Civil remedy—
‘(1) An individual who is a victim of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4 may bring a civil action against the perpetrator in the County Court and may recover damages and reasonable legal costs.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “damages” shall include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labour or the value of the victim’s labour as guaranteed under the national minimum wage guarantees of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.”
This provision creates a civil remedy for victims of trafficking, to allow victims to pursue a civil claim for compensation directly from the trafficker in the absence of a criminal prosecution.
Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(c) the person exploits another person within the meaning of section 3(4), (5) or (6) of this Act and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being exploited.”
Amendment 135, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) it is irrelevant whether a child consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and
(b) a child may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—
(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or
(ii) the child has attempted to escape from the condition.”
Amendment 136, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) it is irrelevant whether a person consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and
(b) a person may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—
(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or
(ii) the person has attempted to escape from the condition.”
Amendment 133, page 1, line 17, after “labour”, insert “or is being exploited”
Amendment 143, page 2, line 3, at end add—
‘(5) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsections 1(1)(a) or 1(1)(b) shall be irrelevant.”
Amendment 152, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 134, page 2, line 30, clause 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of section (1) a person is exploited only if one or more of subsections (4), (5) or (6) of this section apply in relation to the person.”
Amendment 151, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
00 “Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
In section 69, subsection (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, after “debt owned by the Crown”, insert—
“(e) in the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court must presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.””
Amendment 138, in clause 41, page 29, line 29, at end add—
‘(9) A child is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) he or she was under the age of 18 when the act which constitutes the offence was done; and
(b) the offence was integral to or consequent on the trafficking, slavery or exploitation of which he or she was a victim.”
This amendment aims to ensure a child victim of trafficking is not obliged to prove they were compelled to commit an offence before being able to access the protection of the statutory defence in line with international standards.
Diana Johnson
New clause 3 and new clause 4 seek to introduce specific offences for child and adult exploitation, and I would like to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
The Bill fails to cover cases of severe labour exploitation, and many recent high profile cases show we need specific laws to tackle it. New clause 3 would also help to stop workers being exploited and paid below the minimum wage, which is often a driving force behind local businesses being undercut by unscrupulous employers. The new clause would be a historic measure that would, for the first time, make the exploitation of workers, adults and children an offence. Importantly, it also addresses what has been described as “a lacuna” in the Bill, which fails to recognise the specific nature of exploitation of children in the UK and fails to address the issues that have led to so few successful prosecutions for child trafficking and slavery. This grouping incorporates a series of amendments from all parties with a common aim—to enable more prosecutions for trafficking, slavery or exploitation. This is exactly in line with what the Minister said repeatedly in Committee about getting more prosecutions.
At this stage, the Opposition are focusing specifically on the offences of exploitation, even though in Committee we tabled or supported many of the other amendments that have been tabled today. We support their aims and hope to return to them in the other place.
The Government claim that the Bill will enable more prosecutions. To do so, it transposes existing offences from three pieces of legislation into a single Bill. The Bill maintains the current offence of holding someone in slavery and merges two existing offences of human trafficking into a single offence of human trafficking. To secure a prosecution for human trafficking, it is necessary to show that X was trafficked and that this trafficking was done for the purposes of exploitation. It is important to stress that, because nothing in the Bill deals with the structures of these offences or the very high threshold needed to get convictions. In short, I do not think there is anything here that will enable more prosecutions.
Stephen Barclay
Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that, as far as I am aware, only one person has ever gone to jail for breach of a Gangmasters Licensing Authority offence? Does that speak to the high hurdles to which she alludes?
Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We shall discuss the GLA later, but the hon. Gentleman’s point shows why we need to think again about the offences in the Bill and how we can make them stronger to ensure that we get more prosecutions.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the offence of exploitation ought to be committed even when the threat of force is against someone other than the person being exploited—against a relative of the person who is being exploited, for example?
Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which should perhaps be debated more fully in the other place. I absolutely agree that this is a strong point that needs to be considered.
Returning to the low number of prosecutions, in 2011-12 there were 15 prosecutions for slavery offences, but no convictions. Since the introduction of the offence, there has shockingly never been a prosecution where the victim was a child. In 2011, there were 150 prosecutions for trafficking offences, but only eight convictions. To put those figures in context, in 2013 the national referral mechanism received 1,746 separate referrals of cases of human trafficking, 432 of them involving minors. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,744 victims of human trafficking last year, 600 of whom were deemed to be children.
Sir John Randall
One problem—not necessarily about the offences per se—is getting the victims to bear witness and testify against those who trafficked them. Victims’ fear is one reason we are not getting successful convictions, and we need to do more for them.
Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to ensure that victims feel able to come forward and give evidence against those who have trafficked them, but I still think that we need to get the offences right and ensure that the offences are fit for purpose—an argument that I shall develop.
The new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is designed to address some of the structural problems with the drafting of the trafficking offence, and I want to put it on record that we fully support it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are designed to clarify the law on slavery to enable more prosecutions. I am sure that he will speak eloquently to those amendments. Again, we support what he is trying to achieve in principle.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
The Modern Slavery Bill recognises our obligations under article 4 of the European convention on human rights and the 2005 European convention on action against trafficking of human beings, both of which will have informed section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which made it an offence to hold a person in slavery or servitude or to require them to perform forced or compulsory labour.
This Bill will replace section 71 of the 2009 Act but I believe there is a further and somewhat different menace that needs our attention. New clause 4 comes close to identifying it, which is why I have put my name to it. I am not sure that I can follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) into the Lobby if she does force a Division on the new clause, and I suppose I am being somewhat disingenuous as I am using the new clause as a peg to talk about this further and different menace.
I want to urge upon the Government a few thoughts of my own on the subject of exploitation of vulnerable people. We have laws to protect children and those under a mental incapacity through intellectual impairment or disability or the effects of old age. We can prosecute those who take old and frail people's money through fraud and deception, but we leave unprotected adults who may succumb to pressure exerted upon them by others of malevolent intent but whose exploitative activities currently do not come within the criminal law.
I have in mind some young adult women whose experiences have been brought to my attention by their parents and families, some of whom have contacted other right hon. and hon. Members. In essence they have been brainwashed—I use the term unscientifically—or suborned by quack counsellors who have persuaded them to break off all contact with their parents and siblings and to pay them fees for the so-called counselling. Some of these young women are well-off and, I assume, suggestible but all of them for no apparent reason have broken off all contact with their families.
France and Belgium now have laws to criminalise the behaviour of these predatory charlatans—these quacks—who exploit others in a state of emotional or psychological weakness for financial or other gain. It must be assumed that these laws do not conflict with those articles of the ECHR that protect the rights to private and family life, to freedom of expression and to association or religion.
France has made it an offence to abuse the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or of a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, sickness, infirmity to a psychological or physical disability or to pregnancy is apparent or known to the offender, or to abuse a person in a state of physical or psychological dependency resulting from serious or repeated pressure or from techniques used to affect his judgment in order to induce the minor or other person to act or abstain from acting in any way seriously harmful to him. That is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to €375,000. Where the offence is committed by the legal or de facto manager of a group that carries out activities, the aim or effect of which is to create, maintain or exploit the psychological or physical dependency of those who participate in them, the penalty is increased to five years’ imprisonment and to a fine of €750,000. I hope the House will forgive my somewhat inadequate translation of the French into English. But that is what the law says in France.
I accept that to create a new law as outlined by new clause 4 will not be easy but that is not a good reason not to try if the idea is a sound one. I can see that this short debate is not the best place to do this, but may I set out one way of considering whether any proposed offence will work by looking at the following questions? Is it prosecutable in theory and in practice? Can each of the elements of the offence be proved in a real life example? Does the measure deal with the mischief that is identified, and will it catch no one else? How will it affect partners, husbands, wives, teachers, gurus, salesmen, priests and employers, all of whom are likely to have power and influence? Will it allow the mentally capable who decide to give their fortunes away and leave their families to do so? Will it make sufficiently clear what is criminal behaviour and what is not? Will it comply with the European convention on human rights? What effect will it have on religious freedom or freedom of expression or association? That is unquestionably where we shall encounter the greatest controversy, because I suspect that it will not be enough to say that the measure does not outlaw any particular doctrine. If it is used to curtail a religious practice, freedom of religion will clearly be affected.
I have attempted to break the potential offence into a number of component parts or elements so that we can—or, I hope, the Home Office can—better construct the offence that is proposed in the new clause. I wish to criminalise behaviour that is characterised by four factors. The first is persistent or repeated pressure on a person. We shall need to be more specific about what constitutes pressure, and about the techniques employed. We shall also need to consider such questions as whether someone has a pre-existing weakness that can be exploited, or is of ordinary firmness but then becomes enfeebled or vulnerable by virtue of the exploitative pressure. The French law which I mentioned earlier specifies two offences: fraudulently taking advantage of someone who is already weak, and pressurising someone who thereby becomes weak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind Members that, as a result of the timetable set by the Government, the debate on this group of amendments and new clauses must end at 4 pm, and I must allow time for the Minister to respond. I should be grateful if Members would bear that in mind when making their speeches.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will indeed bear that in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will speak briefly, although I think that the issues that I wish to raise are fairly substantial. While I agree with all who have congratulated the Members on both sides of the House who have brought us to this point, I think that there is still a lack of action on key issues, and that the Bill, as it stands, falls a long way short of providing justice for victims of slavery.
There are three core gaps in the Bill. First, we need to get the definitions right, which is the aim of my new clause 24. If we do not do that, we shall risk leaving open legal loopholes that will allow traffickers to thrive. Secondly, the Bill must deliver for victims, which is the aim of new clause 21. Thirdly, there are issues in relation to prevention, which I hope to address later in the debate around new clause 1.
The definition of human trafficking was established in an internationally binding treaty and was integrated into the national laws of some 134 countries. That definition brings with it significant victim protection and a comprehensive framework for addressing trafficking, which is why I propose that we return to that in new clause 24. Unlike the international definition of trafficking, the trafficking provision in this Bill does not criminalise the “harbouring” or the “reception” or the
“exchange or transfer of control”
of victims or even the “recruitment” of victims where those acts do not involve the arrangement or facilitation of travel. We should recognise that there is a real problem in cases involving large criminal networks where different people take different roles in the trafficking process. There is also a problem where victims arrange their own travel into and around the UK and to the site of exploitation, as often occurs when individuals are deceived about work conditions or conditions deteriorate over time. The Bill’s definition, which is narrowly focused on the movement of victims, adds nothing but confusion and will let traffickers off the hook for the crimes they commit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed out.
Let me turn briefly to the purpose of new clause 21. In its current form, it is hard to see what this Bill would provide for the 40 Hungarian men found last year living in squalid conditions and forced to work for less than £2 a day in a mattress factory in Dewsbury, west Yorkshire. The men were barely surviving on limited food. They were crammed into a two-bedroom flat and threatened with violence if they resisted. They were exploited by gangmasters who supplied their forced labour to a factory run by the bed manufacturer KozeeSleep, which provides its products to some of our major national retailers.
Those victims of human trafficking have a right to compensation for the appalling wrongs that have been inflicted upon them. Clauses 8 and 9 include provisions for reparation orders to be made in cases where the perpetrator is convicted and a confiscation order is made, but from 2011 to 2013 only 252 trafficking and forced labour cases were prosecuted, and just 78 of them—less than a third—resulted in convictions. Not only are conviction rates low, but compensation orders are rare. The Government do not keep statistics on this, but we know from victim support providers that they are few and far between. I have tabled new clause 21 to allow victims themselves to bring civil claims in the county court, to seek compensation directly from the trafficker—not from the public purse—in the many cases where a criminal prosecution has not been possible. A similar provision is currently in use in the US Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 2003, and is frequently used successfully to secure compensation for trafficking victims.
These steps are essential to get a Bill that makes a difference to the lives of victims. We must get the very foundations of this Bill right by aligning our definitions with international law and, where people are exploited, making absolutely sure that they are compensated for the abuse suffered. I recognise that we may not get that through agreement on these amendments today, but I hope that these issues will be addressed when the Bill is debated in another place. These measures, together with real action on prevention, can make the difference between a Bill that will deliver headlines and a Bill that will deliver justice.
Stephen Barclay
The official figures for this year showed that more people were trafficked for labour exploitation than for sexual exploitation. The crux of that is money, and new clause 20, which is supported by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), seeks to identify how we can make it easier to recover money from criminals and strike at the heart of what is driving this trafficking trade.
There are two reasons why at present we recover so little from this organised crime. According to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, we currently recover just 23p in every £100 that is identified as criminal assets. That has two results. First, increased pressure is placed on law enforcement agencies when, at a time of austerity and many other demands, investment in forensic investigators is often not a priority. The second reason relates to the high hurdles relating to evidence, which create a disincentive for the Crown Prosecution Service to apply for restraint orders. If there is insufficient evidence, the CPS can incur costs through losing an application. The resulting delay in freezing assets often means that they can be difficult to trace and expensive to identify. The Joint Committee has looked at this matter.
The new clause seeks to make it easier to freeze assets within the first 24 or 48 hours. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has spoken in the House previously on the merits of that, and of learning from the example in Italy. Amendment 151 seeks to achieve that in relation to the presumption about criminal assets being dissipated post-arrest. We need to give the police a clearer incentive to invest in forensic investigators. If I were a chief constable, why would I make such an investment this year if I knew that it would take several years to recover the money, and that if the money were recovered, the Home Office would take 50% of it? We need to change that. We need to overcome the objections of the Home Office and the Treasury so that those who carry out the investigations are those who benefit from the assets that are secured, once the victims have been compensated.
We also need to place a higher duty on financial advisers. At the moment—I say this having worked for such an institution—it is very easy to hide behind a suspicious activity report. In essence, that report is a defensive mechanism, and more than 350,000 are filed with the Serious Organised Crime Agency each year. At the point of an arrest following an investigation by financial investigators, a higher duty should be placed on financial institutions, should they then choose to move the assets in question. We should freeze any assets over and above those that are required for reasonable living and business costs, so that money can less easily be moved offshore. We should also require an asset declaration that could be used to demonstrate an aggravating factor, should assets that had not been declared be discovered following further investigation.
There is a suggestion from the Home Office that some of these issues will be addressed in the Serious Crime Bill, but it is clear that it will not address many of the matters that have been raised in the Joint Committee and by Members here today, so I hope that the Minister will look again at the extent to which the measures in this Bill that relate to the financial proceeds of crime can be strengthened so that we can tackle the root cause of the problem—namely, the funds.
Mr Frank Field
I also wish to speak on that theme, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know you will be pleased to hear that we will not press the matter to a vote, but we hope that the Minister will pick up the idea and translate it into effect in the other place. The change involved would be quite simple. The whole House agrees that we want to get more money back from these evil people. At the moment, we can start the process of freezing assets on the day the investigation begins. However, we have to prove that the person with the assets is likely to dissipate them around the world. The proposed change would mean that any agency attempting to freeze assets under the provisions of this Bill—which I hope will soon become an Act—would not be required to meet any threshold of proof that the person would otherwise dissipate them. That would make a huge difference to the number of people we hope will be prosecuted, as they could then have their assets frozen. There would then be a ready source of moneys with which the Government could make good on their wish to compensate the victims of slavery. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) —as I call him on many of these occasions—has pointed out, those moneys could be used to help to pay for the policing involved, which would make the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 more effective.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Before I call Mr David Burrowes, I must ask him to bear it in mind that we have one more speaker on this group of amendments. If he and Mr Durkan could each speak for about four minutes, that would give the Minister time to reply before 4 o’clock.
Mr Burrowes
I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.
I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.
The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.
Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
We have no time, but I just want to put on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Burrowes
I thank the hon. Lady very much. I am sure we can find a way of putting in the Bill our understanding that consent is irrelevant here, particularly in relation to children. As for what is in case law, let us get a form of words in the Bill that ensures that we increase the prosecutions for slavery, particularly in relation to children.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to my amendment 138, which is mainly what I wish to address. However, I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said about the amendments standing in his name and the wider issue of consent, which is also touched upon in amendment 143.
Amendment 138 aims to make good a clear deficit in the Government’s provision in the Bill for a statutory defence. That defence is inadequate and certainly is not fit to deal with the position of children. The amendment seeks to change that so that child victims of trafficking would be fully protected. Clearly, children have already suffered if they are detained in the process, and if they find themselves subject to a prosecution or even the speculation about a prosecution. That becomes traumatic for children who have come through trafficking, slavery or exploitation, as it would for any victim. So it would be wrong to have a requirement that children have to show that there was compulsion—that should not exist in law. The presence of any other means including compulsion should be irrelevant when defining a child as a victim of trafficking or exploitation. Children in such a situation will be frightened, confused and traumatised. They should not face further isolation and distress and all the other psychological pressures as they go through what will be to them a fairly unknown process.
Despite the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, children are still prosecuted. It should be an imperative for us in this legislation to stop that occurring in the future, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to do that.
I point out to the Minister that in July the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged the Government, in relation to trafficked children and to all children covered by the optional protocol on the sale of children, to establish
“a clear obligation of non-prosecution in the criminal justice system and ensuring that [children] are treated as victims rather than criminals by law enforcement and judicial authorities.”
Basically, that is what amendment 138 tries to do; it tries to bring the Bill up to that standard. However, I recognise that there is the wrinkle in relation to schedule 3, and for that reason amendment 138 addresses a very important issue that needs to be considered further. I will not be pressing the matter to a Division, because, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, there is an outstanding issue in connection with it.
Karen Bradley
I am grateful to all Members for tabling and speaking to a number of amendments that relate to the offences set out in clauses 1 and 2, the ability to seize the assets of those convicted of offences and the defence for victims who are compelled to commit an offence, as outlined in clause 41.
We had a thorough, detailed and lively debate on the offences and their practical application in Committee. I am extremely grateful to all Members of this House and others who have contributed to the debates on the offences and have made their thoughts known to the Government to enable us to continue our thinking.
I made it clear in Committee that the Government’s approach is to consolidate and simplify existing offences into a single Act, which will make it easier for law enforcers to understand. We want to see clear offences that can be used effectively by prosecutors and others to convict serious criminals who will now face a potential life sentence.
The offences in the Bill deliberately tackle serious criminal conduct that can be said to amount to modern slavery. Given the time available and the amount of discussion that we have had, I want to put it on the record at this stage that the Government continue to listen to all points that are made on this matter. We want to ensure that we reflect the concerns that have been raised and that we have clear and simple offences that achieve the convictions that we all want. Members should remember that we are looking here at international conventions and protocols that are written in civil law, which is a different type of law. Putting them straight into UK common law sometimes creates unintended consequences, and I am keen to ensure that we do not do that.
Clause 1 targets those who hold a person in slavery or servitude or who require another person to perform forced or compulsory labour in this country, without any requirements for movement. The clause 2 offence targets a different type of wrongdoing, which is the movement of human beings with a view to exploiting them. That different type of wrongdoing has been the subject of international legal instruments such as the Palermo protocol and the EU directive. That is fully justified because we know that there is an international and national trade in human beings. It is right that we have a separate offence targeting those involved in the movement of people to be exploited, and that is what this offence achieves.
These measures are part of a wider strategy to improve the law enforcement response to modern slavery, and to increase the number of successful prosecutions. Let me highlight that there is no magic bullet by which we can transform the situation simply by amending the technical definition of the offences. The Committee heard from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the offences set out in this Bill are clear and welcome. However, the issue is often not the definition of the offence, but getting the evidence required for a conviction, which is a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall).
I want to touch on the Kinsella case, which the shadow Minister raised. We discussed a number of cases in Committee. It is important to put it on the record that the offenders in that case were convicted of false imprisonment, and that offence carries a maximum of a life sentence, whereas under the current law, slavery carries a maximum of only 14 years. It is completely understandable that those offenders faced the criminal charge conveying the highest possible penalty, but this Bill will ensure that slavery and trafficking offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and I want to see those offences used in prosecutions in the future. So the solution to obtaining more prosecutions is better work by law enforcement, better support for victims and witnesses, and clear offences with the more severe penalties set out by this Bill.
New clauses 3 and 4 and the amendments seek in different ways to widen the scope of the offences to create a new criminal offence of exploitation, which will carry a life sentence. I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members have tabled such amendments. I share the concern to ensure that this Bill criminalises modern slavery effectively. The wider criminal law needs to tackle exploitation that should properly be criminal but might fall short of the conduct required for the serious offences in this Bill.
I know that we debated this issue at length in Committee and I continue to look seriously at where there may be any gaps in the legislation. I have been absolutely clear throughout that our approach to offences is to take seriously how they will work in practice. For example, we have taken advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director gave evidence in Committee that
“We much prefer the clarity of the offences in the Bill as drafted by the Government.”––Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 4, Q2.]
rather than the more complicated and confusing alternative presented by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which included exploitation and child exploitation offences.
Introducing exploitation offences would risk causing confusion. “Exploitation” is potentially a very broad term, and there is a real risk that we would capture much wider behaviour than was ever intended in this Bill, which focuses rightly on the very serious crimes of slavery and human trafficking. The risk is that, by making the offences too broad, the public will no longer be clear on the conduct that we are targeting through very serious criminal offences that carry a life sentence as a maximum. And the effect of the Bill on law enforcement will be diluted, as the conduct we are targeting will be less clear and so will law enforcement’s focus on the victims of serious crime. It is only right and proper that, where we are dealing with less serious conduct, we prosecute those responsible using less serious offences.
A second issue raised by new clauses 3 and 4 is whether separate child offences are needed in this Bill. In some circumstances, child offences are helpful to enable a tougher sentence to be given to criminals who target and abuse children. This Bill introduces a maximum of a life sentence for the main offences in relation to slavery and human trafficking and current sentencing guidelines already highlight offences against children as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. There is no practical benefit in establishing a separate child-specific offence when offenders already face the maximum penalty possible—life. That is why there is no need for a separate child murder offence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions gave clear evidence to the Committee that
“If you separated out offences into adults and children, it would make it more complicated because we know from the number of cases we prosecute that defining and identifying someone’s age is often extremely difficult…There is absolutely no need for it to be separated out; that would make it more complicated and more difficult to prosecute some of these offences.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 21 July 2014; c. 6, Q11.]
So I do not believe that a separate child offence would help to deliver the objectives of the House.
Amendments 135, 136, and 143 seek to remove any requirement for consent to be considered by the court when looking at clause 1. While I do not favour the wording of the amendments tabled today, which could make prosecution harder, I want to be clear that the Government are open to clarifying this aspect of the offences. We have already altered the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny to make it clear that the court could look at all the circumstances when determining whether an offence had taken place, including any vulnerability of the victim. I am now seriously considering the issue of consent in clause 1 and whether the law could be clarified to make it clearer that consent does not preclude a determination that a child is being held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Turning to the trafficking offence, the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee also raised a concern that the offence in the draft Bill might not be as broad as the international definition, for example on receipt or harbouring of the victim. We responded and made it clear in the Bill that arranging or facilitating the travel of another person includes all of the ways through which human trafficking may be committed, as set out in the Palermo protocol and EU directive. So a person may arrange or facilitate travel by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving, or transferring or exchanging control over a person—words reflecting those used in the international instruments.
In Committee, we debated whether there should be a requirement for travel in the offence. Those instruments are explicitly concerned with “human trafficking”. The evil that we are trying to tackle is trafficking, and clearly trafficking involves movement or travel of the victim.
On asset recovery, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for raising the important issue of asset recovery in relation to modern slavery offences. We have amended the definitions of modern slavery offences to make them lifestyle offences for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and introduced a reparation order, but we are seeking through the Serious Crime Bill to look at a number of other measures that would tighten up asset recovery overall. I hope that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to have that debate when the Serious Crime Bill reaches this place.
The provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act are already tougher—
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 16—Accommodation operated by gangmasters—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this Act being passed bring forward regulations to require gangmasters providing, or soliciting a third party to provide, accommodation to a worker to—
(a) agree and keep of a copy of a tenancy agreement with the worker;
(b) provide and keep copies of receipts for any rent paid by the worker to them; and
(c) keep a rent book recording rent due and paid.
(2) In section 7 of the Gangmaster (Licensing) Act 2004 after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) It shall be a condition of holding a license under this section that the gangmaster provide on request to the Authority or a local authority the documents required under regulations made under section (Accommodation operated by Gangmasters) of the Modern Slavery Act 2014.”
(3) The Authority and police shall have the right of inspection of tenancy agreements held by letting agencies where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a number of properties are let or sub-let by the same individual to multiple workers.”
New clause 17—Gangmasters: offences, financial transactions—
In the Gangmaster Licensing Act 2004 after section 13 (Offences: payments to or by gangmasters) insert—
“13A Offences: gangmasters, financial transactions
(1) This section applies to a person who is acting as a gangmaster in respect of a worker (“W”).
(2) The person commits an offence if whilst acting as set out in subsection (1) they make a payment to W that is not made either—
(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or
(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise), or
(3) The person commits an offence if—
(a) whilst making a payment to W in respect of work they do not keep a record of the payment and the hours worked for which the payment is due, or
(b) if they do not produce such a record when required to by either the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2) to permit other methods of payment.
(5) In this section making a payment includes payment in kind (with goods or services).
(6) If a gangmaster pays a worker in breach of subsection (2), each of the following is guilty of an offence—
(a) the gangmaster;
(b) if the payment is made with the knowledge of the person to whom the gangmaster is supplying W, that person; and
(c) any person who makes the payment acting for the gangmaster.
(7) It is a defence for a person within subsection (4)(a) or (b) who is charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person—
(a) made arrangements to ensure that the payment was not made in breach of subsection (1), and
(b) took all reasonable steps to ensure that those arrangements were complied with.
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
New clause 18—Provision of fixed penalty notices for gangmasters—
‘(1) The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12 (Offences: acting as a gangmaster, being in possession of false documents etc.) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fixed monetary penalties to be applied for an offence under this Act where—
(a) the offence is of a lower level of severity, and
(b) slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour is not a contributory factor in the offence.
(4B) Regulations made under subsection (4A) shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless laid before in draft and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””
New clause 19—Investigation of modern slavery offences by Gangmasters Licensing Authority—
‘(1) In section 1 (The Gangmasters Licensing Authority) after “holding licences under this Act,” insert—
“(c) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences involve gangmasters,
(d) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences are alleged to have been committed by a person licensed under this Act, whether or not the offence was committed in their capacity as a gangmaster,”
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer powers on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in order to investigate offences under this Act.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) shall include provision to require financial institutions to disclose details of financial holdings to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police in pursuit of an investigation of an offence under this Act.
(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless they have been laid before in draft, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 2—Protection from slavery from overseas domestic workers—
‘(1) All overseas and domestic workers, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—
(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;
(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period up to 12 months as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves adequately without recourse to public funds; and
(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”
New clause 6—Procuring sex for payment—
‘(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he or she procures sexual intercourse or any other sexual act, whether for himself or for another person, in return for payment.
(2) A “payment” includes—
(a) payment that is promised or is given or promised by another person; and
(b) provision of non-financial benefits, including, but not limited to, drugs or alcohol.”
New clause 7—Strategy on assistance and support for exiting prostitution—
The Secretary of State shall, at least once in every year, publish a strategy to ensure that a programmes of assistance and support is made available to a person who wishes to leave prostitution.”
New clause 22—Prostitution and sexual exploitation—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the links between prostitution and human trafficking and sexual exploitation in England and Wales.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons;
(b) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against those trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and
(c) the extent to which alternative legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the European Union, including Northern Ireland, have been effective at reducing sexual exploitation and the number of people trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
(3) The review under subsection (1) must be completed and a copy must be laid before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent.”
New clause 23—Consultation on prostitution, sexual exploitation and trafficking—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a statutory consultation on the introduction of legislation prohibiting the procurement of sex for payment.
(2) The consultation in subsection (1) must seek to ascertain the degree to which the prohibition of sex for payment would—
(a) reduce the number of people sexually exploited in England and Wales;
(b) reduce demand for sexual services from sexually exploited persons in England and Wales;
(c) reduce the number of people trafficked into England and Wales for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
(3) In undertaking the consultation in subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) seek the views of those who work with trafficked and exploited persons in England and Wales;
(b) seek the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers; and
(c) allow submissions from members of the public.
(4) The consultation must be completed and a summary of the results laid before Parliament within six months of the date of Royal Assent.”
Amendment 1, page 45, line 21, at end insert—
“Street Offences Act 1959
‘(10) Omit section 1”
Mr Hanson
New clause 1 and the other amendments in this group address a wide range of issues that are linked by the terminology of exploitation but cover different aspects of concern. They include my suggestions on gangmasters; comments and suggestions on the same topic by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay); how we deal with overseas domestic workers; and a wide ranging group of amendments on how we deal with the sensitive, difficult and challenging issue of prostitution. I will cover a number of issues, and I hope I do justice to them and set out the official Opposition’s position.
New clause 1 revisits an issue that we discussed intensely in Committee: the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We considered a number of things to do with extending the role of that authority, and in the light of those discussions the new clause simply establishes that
“The Secretary of State may by order amend section 3 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004”
to include other areas of work should a future Secretary of State determine that exploitation, modern slavery or trafficking was taking place. It gives the Secretary of State power to do that by order, rather than having to introduce new legislation.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee the Minister said that she would continue to keep the GLA’s remit under review to ensure that it met the needs of the modern slavery strategy? Does he think that was a reasonable comment to have made?
Mr Hanson
The Minister said:
“The case has not been made for extending the GLA’s remit at this stage beyond the core areas the Act sought to address.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 480.]
She has recently undertaken a review into gangmasters legislation, and determined that there should be no extension of its remit. I am saying—I hope the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) will take heed of this—that new clause 1 simply gives power to the Secretary of State to extend that remit, should they seek to do so. Were I to be Minister in a few months’ time, I would want to consider extending the scope of the gangmasters legislation because widespread views from trade unions, charities and academics suggest that many people are underpaid or exploited in areas not covered by current legislation.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As I understand it—forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick—new clause 1 is simply to make it easier should a future Minister determine that it is necessary to widen the scope of section 3 of the 2004 Act. Will the shadow Minister give the House some indication as to what difference that would make in terms of time scale and bringing forward that legislation?
Mr Hanson
I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points in the course of my remarks.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) introduced legislation on gangmasters in 2004. I pay tribute to him, because that is effective legislation. It has protected workers in three key sectors—agriculture, shellfish collection and horticulture. It has done something all hon. Members should be proud of: it has driven out poor standards, protected work forces, and ensured that we do not undercut legitimate workers in those sectors.
My argument in new clause 1 is that we should give the power to the Secretary of State to extend that. Following the Government’s triennial review, they said:
“There is no change to the remit or funding of the agency”,
yet there is ample evidence that the agency should have its work extended, particularly following the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, on which a number of hon. Members present in the House served. The Committee considered a number of issues in detail, including the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. In paragraph 189 of its report, the Committee states:
“There was consensus from our witnesses over the excellent reputation of the GLA…the GLA has been held in high regard as an example of good practice.”
In paragraph 190, it states:
“We heard from the Authority itself that there are limitations to what the GLA can currently do. Its Chief Executive, Paul Broadbent, told us that the GLA’s underpinning legislation was ‘good up to a point’, but did not provide for the GLA to carry out what he described as ‘hot pursuit’”.
The Committee said:
“Several witnesses made the case for widening the industrial remit of the GLA to other sectors where forced labour is prevalent”,
and that:
“The weight of evidence we received suggested that expanding the GLA’s powers and industrial remit would yield positive results.”
The Committee was comprised of Members of both Houses from all parties, but the TUC report, “Hard Work, Hidden Lives” concluded:
“The GLA needs to be extended to hospitality, construction and catering as these are usually small businesses that are open to abuse.”
Oxfam, which hon. Members will agree is a well-respected charity, has said:
“Gangmasters have diversified into sectors beyond the reach of the GLA where there is less regulation of labour standards.”
It concluded that
“the GLA’s remit must immediately be extended to the sectors of construction, hospitality, and…care”.
Stephen Barclay
When breaches by a gangmaster operating in a regulated sector such as agriculture are found by the GLA, would it be reasonable to assume that that same gangmaster operating in the hospitality sector is carrying out the same abuses, which therefore deserve to be investigated?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point the Opposition made in Committee. Gangmasters are diversifying. They are moving into horticulture, catering and the care homes sector. I do not want to ruin his reputation, but the amendments he has tabled have the Opposition’s support, because he has indicated that measures can be taken to tighten up how we operate the current gangmaster legislation.
In his original Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North sought to protect people who are exploited, but such legislation is also about supporting legitimate businesses working in those sectors who find themselves being undercut by people who are operating sharp practices. What is good for the horticulture, agriculture or shellfish collection sectors should be good for other sectors, such as care homes and construction. New clause 1 does not specify that, but simply says that the Minister has the power to extend legislation. I hope we can give her the power and make the case, both up to the election and I hope in my case beyond it, for introducing changes to improve how the legislation operates.
Stephen Barclay
One reason why the Government have resisted such a measure is the view of the Secretary of State for Defence, who, as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills felt that we would be adding additional red tape. Aside from the fact that targeting criminals who abuse people is not the sort of problem on which the deregulation challenge should focus, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that going after those people is not red tape, because many of the large businesses would welcome the fact that they are not being undercut by those abusing the market?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so I am not sure it is in order for us to agree again. The British Retail Consortium supported our proposals in Committee. This is not some kind of mystical issue; this will help to protect the work force, stop undercutting and protect legitimate businesses working in specific areas. What is good for the three sectors currently covered should be good for others too.
I do not just pray in aid Oxfam, the TUC and the Joint Committee. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:
“Many have called for extending the authority…of the GLA to cover all industries where there is known risk of exploitation and forced labour associated with labour providers. The evidence from the JRF’s programme points to the same recommendation.”
In Committee, I prayed in aid Andrew Boff, who is not a member of my party but the Mayor of London’s representative and deputy. In a report on slavery in London, he recommended strongly the extension of gangmaster legislation. That is very important, because we need to send a very strong signal on exploitation.
An answer to a recent parliamentary question revealed that the number of criminal investigations under the current gangmaster legislation has dropped from a high point of 134 in 2011, to 76 in 2013 and 65 to date in 2014. This information has come to light since the Public Bill Committee last sat. The Minister said in Committee that this was a growing problem. I would welcome her view on why the number of investigations into gangmaster activity has dropped over the four-year period.
The National Crime Agency, the general secretary of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the British Retail Consortium and the Ethical Trading Initiative have all said we should consider extending gangmaster legislation. New clause 1 would give the Minister the chance to do that speedily. I pressed her on this in and outside Committee. With due respect to her talent as a Minister, I do not think she has made an effective case for why we cannot extend it to the areas suggested by me and the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire.
I think there is a general consensus outside the House that exploitation is exploitation, be it in relation to shellfish or care work. We therefore need to look at this in an effective way. This is not, dare I say, a fly-by-night issue for the hon. Gentleman. He has pursued it over many months. His amendments do not deal directly with the matters addressed in new clause 1, but we sat on a Bill some time ago in the mists of this Parliament and he raised the same issues then. He has a real opportunity to ensure that his amendments enhance the 2004 legislation and build on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. He has our support, and if he wants to use that on his election address in due course I am sure that will be even better for him.
New clause 2 addresses protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers. The previous Government put in place a regime for migrant domestic workers who accompanied employers to the UK. The current Government changed the regime in April 2012. Overseas domestic worker visa holders are now tied to their original employer and the visa is not renewable beyond its initial six-month duration. We have had two-and-a-half years of the new regime since April 2012, and there is real concern that it has been detrimental to domestic workers and is causing real challenges in the system that need to be considered.
That is my view—I am open and honest about it—but it is shared by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill, including Members in their places today who supported recommendations on a cross-party basis. Andrew Boff, the Conservative leader of the London assembly, is of that view, too. In his report on human trafficking, he said:
“I don’t think it intends to be, but the Government is actually licensing modern-day slavery… through their changes to tie a visa to an employer.”
There is cross-party support for the Government to review the issues covered by new clause 2. In agreement are a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, comprising and dominated by Government members, the leader of the Conservative group on the London assembly, along with many organisations interested in this topic from outside the House—notably Kalayaan, which carried out a study on the impact of the Government’s proposals.
Kalayaan has thrown up some really concerning figures. Between 6 April 2012 and 3 April 2014, 402 migrant domestic workers registered with Kalayaan. Of those, 120 were tied to their employers and 282 had entered the UK prior to April 2012. There was a real difference between the way in which these groups were treated. The Minister said in Committee that it was a “small sample”. Yes, it is, but if that sample shows that 62% of overseas domestic workers on tied visas report being paid no salary at all, and if 85% of those on tied visas are not given their own room to sleep in, with 86% saying that their passports have been taken off them by their employers, 96% not allowed to leave the house unsupervised, 74% reporting having suffered psychological abuse and 95% paid less than £100 a week, the size of the sample is not the crucial thing. Whatever the size of the sample, real and difficult challenges are evident, and they can be traced back to the change in the granting of these visas in 2012.
The Joint Committee recommended in its draft Bill that we return to the position of April 2012—prior to the changes the Government made. That proposal was put in Committee, and there was a tie with nine votes to nine votes. Members of the governing party voted with other members of the Committee; some Members did not, which was their choice; some Members supported the draft Bill’s recommendations and voted against them in Committee, which was their choice. I believe, however, that there is a real consensus on ensuring that this issue is looked at in the other place. I hope the Government will consider it further. New clause 2 provides an opportunity to do so.
Let me move on from new clauses 1 and 2 to the other contentious and wide-ranging issue suggested by this group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised this initially in Committee—the issues of how to deal with sex workers and prostitution and of how prostitution should be dealt with by society as a whole. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly speak to her new clauses. MPs do not need to look far into their inboxes to realise that a range of views are being expressed, including by the all-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has also filtered through a range of issues for Members to consider. People have different views about how to deal with this.
Let me put it on the record from the outset, however, that all the different views focus on the fact that there are around 80,000 people, mainly women and girls, involved in prostitution today. Nobody can deny that many of these workers carry out this work voluntarily, yet a lot of them are involved in sexual slavery, having got here through different routes. They are often pimped by people they know and can be trafficked by organised gangs. They are often extremely vulnerable, having been abused in the past. About 95% of women in street prostitution have problematic drug use; over half of women involved in prostitution in the UK have been raped and/or sexually assaulted; and the vast majority of those assaults are committed by people who have purchased sex from them.
According to recent statistics, there has been a recent and rapid increase in the number of non-British women selling sex on the street in a significant number of London boroughs. There are real concerns about trafficked women being exploited in on-street as well as off-street prostitution and about the fact that this exploitation is now being controlled and organised by criminal gangs. This is a real issue that the House needs to address.
A number of solutions have been proposed. The Nordic model, which is effectively the basis of the proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, looks at how we diminish street prostitution—particularly by making it an offence for people to buy sex. One argument put forward is that street prostitution has diminished by half and that the number of brothel businesses is also diminishing, or certainly has not increased. There is evidence of the flow of human trafficking having been slowed in Sweden because of that. In Norway there is evidence that that is contributing to the reduction in demand for and volume of prostitution. But we do not have to look far into our email inboxes to know that there are very strong views from people involved in the trade that that potential model and others could lead to further violence against those who are involved in the industry and/or to driving prostitution underground.
The Opposition have tabled new clause 22, which seeks to place upon the Government a legal responsibility to undertake a review of these issues in detail. We are seeking to deal with this matter effectively. We have said that within six months of Royal Assent the Government should look at all the discussion points that are before us today. The review would investigate the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons. It would look at the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against trafficking people and sexual exploitation, and at the very points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in her amendments today: the legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the EU, including Northern Ireland. The review would look at the examples of Sweden and of Norway to help inform the debate.
All of us will have different experiences in our constituencies about the impact and challenges of this problem and I am not intending to come to conclusions today. The purpose of new clause 22, effectively, is to give a spur to a wider discussion on the topic. I hope that the Minister can look at it in that way because there are strong views on how we deal with the issue. It is important to have a proper debate.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I just want absolute clarity. The review in new clause 22, which I support, is a review before legislation, not after, so I am somewhat confused by subsection (3).
Mr Hanson
This Bill. The purpose is to lay a legally binding commitment upon the Minister to produce a report that takes account of whatever views are expressed in the debate today, but also of the views of the all-party group of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in many emails. The real issue is how this House approaches the issue of prostitution. Now is the time for a review of the legislation.
Mr Burrowes
The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and may well have been involved in introducing in 2009 the criminalising of the purchase of sex from someone subjected to force. Evidence suggests that that has not been particularly effective. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that and on whether the evidence from it takes us any further?
Mr Hanson
As ever, having had a ministerial career in the last Government, I have form on these issues. In 2008-09, when I was the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough presented proposals in Committee that were similar to those that she has presented on this occasion, and the Government did not accept them. We look and we learn, and a new issue is now evolving. I think it fair to say that there is a greater involvement of criminal gangs in trafficking people for prostitution than there has ever been before.
The purpose of our new clause is simply to make the Secretary of State legally responsible for producing a review within six months. Six months from Royal Assent will mean something between the middle and the end of next year. The evidence enabling the next incoming Government to make judgments will already have been gathered, so that they—not me, and not the present Minister—can make those judgments on the basis of a full review.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If my right hon. Friend had had Home Office evidence that this trade was worth £130 million a year when he was a Minister at the Home Office, would that have changed his view of the proposals that were being presented?
Mr Hanson
I do not think that we made a financial assessment of the value of the trade when I was a Minister. I know that it is being discussed currently, as part of other discussions relating to the Treasury’s contributions to Europe.
I do not want to be diverted, because we have only a short time available. I have tried to compress the material for a long series of debates into a fairly short contribution. Let me now sum up that contribution. New clause 22 concerns a review, and it commits the Government to nothing other than that review. There is a real case for extending the gangmaster legislation; new clause 1 simply gives the Secretary of State the power to do that, which I hope she will welcome.
I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I think it important for us to revert to the April 2012 position in regard to overseas domestic workers for a number of reasons. I also think it important to stimulate a debate on the issues of prostitution and sexual exploitation, without reaching any conclusions yet, and that has been possible today through new clause 22.
I commend all three of our new clauses to the Minister. I hope that she will be able to deliver a positive response, but—as ever, Mr Speaker, you will have expected me to say this—in the event of her not doing so, I should like at least to reflect on the possibility of testing the House’s opinion in due course.
Stephen Barclay
I want to develop the theme of how we can make prosecution and enforcement quicker and easier. I am aware that a number of Members who wanted to speak earlier have not yet been able to do so, and I shall therefore keep my remarks short.
I want to speak about new clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19. Let me begin with new clause 16. At present, it is very difficult for police in areas such as Wisbech in my constituency to identify houses in multiple occupation. The presence of 20-odd people in a two-storey house often does not meet the legal definition of an HMO. One of the ways in which we can make life easier for the local police is to give them clearer powers and rights to inspect letting agencies, and require gangmasters to keep records in the form of rent books and tenancy agreements. At present, when there is a breach of a tenancy agreement, it falls to the tenant to bring a private prosecution. How realistic is that? How realistic is it to expect someone who has been trafficked, who does not speak English and who does not understand the law to bring a private prosecution against his landlord?
We need to make it quicker, easier and therefore cheaper for the police to identify concentrations of HMOs. They need to be able to go into those houses, establish whether the law relating to, for instance, rent books is being adhered to, and take action if necessary. That will necessitate rights of access to the records of letting agents, and a requirement that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can then use for leverage in relation to gangmasters.
New clause 17 seeks to build on the lessons this House can learn from scrap metal merchants being forbidden from taking cash payments and asks how we can create an audit trail for financial investigators in terms of the known abuse around the minimum wage legislation and the way people are being paid. At present wage slips will often simply show that someone was on for one day—it could have been seven hours, it could have been 12 hours—and when payments are made, they are made in cash. Straight away, deductions are taken for accommodation and for vehicles, so the abused worker never actually receives that money. Often they are told when they come into the country that they are not allowed a bank account. Obviously that is erroneous information, but they do not know otherwise. New clause 17 therefore addresses how we can make it easier for the police to follow the money—follow that audit trail—so that once money goes into an account, it is with the worker and it becomes harder for the rogue gangmaster to deduct it at source, which is what currently happens.
New clause 18’s provision is, I fear, almost a well-worn theme. I had a debate on it in Westminster Hall in 2012 and 2013. The measure was being blocked by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, although I was told privately that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was supporting it. The reality is that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority does not have the full range of tools available. It has draconian penalties available in terms of criminal sanctions, but they are almost never used because the standard of proof is high and the amount of time required is extensive.
To put this in context, do Members know how many inspectors the GLA currently has? It has 35 for the whole country. There is one covering the whole of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. An inspector could spend their entire time just driving around my constituency, never mind the rest of the county and the two counties combined. The LGA has 35 inspectors and a budget of £4 million. We need only think about how much a supermarket makes in a week to see how well resourced the GLA is.
Stephen Barclay
Tesco has some serious questions to answer in terms of its supply chain and the way some of its operations have been conducted. I do not want to return to the earlier debate, but if one looks at some of the difficulties Tesco is having in terms of its profit warnings, one wonders how accurate some of its statements on its website might be, especially given its statements on other areas.
My point is we need to make it easier for the GLA, at a time when it is resource-constrained, to take enforcement action. One of those ways is to hit rogue gangmasters in the pocket, through civil fines. There is a lower evidential requirement for that and it is quicker and cheaper, and we should be facilitating that. I hope the move of the GLA from DEFRA into the Home Office gives more clout within Whitehall for this long-overdue change.
New clause 19 addresses what happens when a gangmaster is found abusing workers in one sector. The shadow Minister touched on that in his opening remarks. It is illogical that where someone is operating in one sector or industry illegally, we seem to assume that that sinner is suddenly a saint in another sector. The additional costs of the extra 1 million temporary workers currently within the unregulated sector would place a huge burden on the GLA, so I am sympathetic to the Minister in terms of the constraints on extending into the unregulated sector, but we need to make that easier. Where a gangmaster has been shown to be rogue in one sector, that is the gateway through which we can make a foray into the unregulated activity of that specific gangmaster, not of the whole unregulated industry.
This is a very good Bill that will make a huge difference in constituencies such as mine and it signals the Government’s intent in this area. When the Minister responds, I hope she will consider the operational difficulties faced by the police and the GLA in particular, and bring forward measures that make their job easier, quicker and cheaper, and therefore more likely to be achieved.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 6 and 7 and amendment 1, which have been tabled in my name. In doing so, I want to focus on an issue that is the driver of a great deal of the exploitation and human trafficking in Britain today. Before I do that, however, I want to thank the Minister for her relatively helpful letter on the issue of domestic servitude, which is one of the matters being addressed in the Bill. I drew to her attention the case of a young woman who had been forced to use employment law in order to be paid. I remain shocked that the police did not take notice of that case or prosecute her exploiter. The reality is that domestic servitude does not, on the whole, involve big organised gangs, although they are often the ones that bring the people to the UK in the first place. It is within domestic settings that people are grotesquely abused, and unless we help those victims to help themselves, as the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would do, we will continue to see an increase in that kind of trafficking.
Sarah Teather
I wish to comment on new clause 2. This Bill is unique in that it is one piece of Home Office legislation that I warmly welcome. None the less, I was disappointed to find that it did not include any provisions relating to the protection of overseas domestic workers.
Since becoming an MP 11 years ago, I have had many constituency cases involving overseas domestic workers who have managed to escape an abusive or exploitative employer and who were seeking protection. Those women had been made prisoners; their passports had been stolen and they had been made to work extremely long hours for very little pay and with no time off.
In April 2012, the Government changed the rules so that domestic workers would no longer be able to change employer. Instead they have a tied visa, which links their immigration status to their employer. The evidence collected by Kalayaan indicates that the result of the new visas has been an increase in abuse and exploitation. I understand that the Minister disputes those figures, but her own proposals will not address the problem that Kalayaan raises.
Given the levels and types of abuse that are experienced by overseas domestic workers, we should view this Bill as the opportune vehicle to provide extra protection, as it goes to the very heart of protecting victims of modern slavery. There was an extremely short debate on this matter right at the end of the Committee stage. The Minister said then that reintroducing the right to change employers was not the answer to preventing abuse. It was very difficult for us to explore all the issues because we were right up against time. The Minister then showed us a new information card that will be given to overseas domestic workers, and since then she has sent me a draft revised standard template contract, for which I am very grateful. However, I am not convinced that these steps, while welcome, will be enough on their own to prevent abuse while the tied visa system is still in place. This is not a one-or-the-other issue. I accept the Minister’s argument that abuse undoubtedly also took place before the change in the visa system, but I am not convinced that merely giving people more advice will be enough. We need to tackle the tied visa system, which seems to have made the problem worse.
Some 78% of domestic workers who have arrived on a tied visa and then sought assistance from Kalayaan have reported that their passport was confiscated by their employer. What is to stop that same employer taking the information card as well? Moreover, given that many will not have access to a phone, how are they supposed to dial the numbers on the card, assuming that the card is even in a language that they can read in the first place?
In Committee, the Minister criticised the robustness of Kalayaan's figures. It should be remembered that Kalayaan is an extremely small organisation, with very limited resources.
Karen Bradley
Let me make myself clear. I do not dispute Kalayaan’s figures. I was merely pointing out that there was evidence of abuse both before and after the tie of the visa. I therefore believe that we need to tackle the root cause of that abuse and not merely look at the tie on the visa. I do not dispute the figures that Kalayaan has put out.
Sarah Teather
That is a helpful clarification. I agree with the Minister that we have to tackle the root cause of the abuse. I simply think that we need to do both. I am not sure that the solutions that the Minister has suggested will be enough on their own. I wonder whether I could persuade the Minister, especially as Kalayaan is such a small organisation, to consider collecting more data on overseas domestic workers. We know that abuse exists, and it would be helpful in our debates to have more accurate tracking of what happens. It may be that only the Government have the resources to fund such research.
Mr Speaker
Order. A significant number of colleagues still seek to contribute. There is no formal time limit—we are in a Report stage—but perhaps colleagues will have some regard to the interests of their colleagues.
Steve McCabe
I commend new clause 22. We need the review that it proposes and a thorough investigation of the links between human trafficking, prostitution and exploitation. It seems to me that that is the only way we will change the minds of the legislators and the wider public to bring about some of the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) suggests.
Any trade that can be estimated to be worth £130 million a year should command our attention. We should look to understand it fully, with the purpose of undermining and collapsing it. That is what we are here for, and what we should do.
Finally, I want to mention Juliet, a young woman who currently resides in my constituency. She is supported by the asylum charity Restore. She fled here from Nigeria to escape slavery, brutality and a forced marriage, and she fell into the hands of traffickers and ended up working in a brothel. The Home Office, sadly, intends to deal with that by sending Juliet back to Nigeria. We need to smash the link in this trade altogether, and we have to tackle a situation that punishes the victims while the traffickers carry on their trade and the clients who make that trade viable are largely unaffected by the misery that they generate and perpetrate. New clause 22 would make a good contribution to that and help this Bill achieve some of the aims that most of us here back.
Sir John Randall
As you know, Mr Speaker, I am standing down at the end of this Parliament, so I hope that I am allowed to say a few things.
I support the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I would give a piece of advice to the talent spotters on our Front Bench. He is becoming an extremely good Member of Parliament and they should harness that by putting him into a ministerial position so that he can be useful—not, of course, to stifle that dangerous streak of independence.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should just point out that that observation comes from the hon. Member from whose mouth came the advice that the hon. Member for Buckingham should aspire to join Her Majesty’s Opposition Whips Office, which I thought was perhaps not a great idea.
Sir John Randall
At the time I thought that it was appropriate, Mr Speaker, but I fear that your opportunities have since vanished.
There is no fool like an old fool, and I am afraid that I felt a little like that in supporting—sincerely—the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I say that not because I disagree with the sentiment; we have heard so much about modern slavery and become so immersed in the issue that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, when we meet the victims, so many of whom are involved in the sex trade, there is a real feeling that the demand must somehow be curbed. However, I am not sure that this Bill is the right place to do that.
That issue seems to have stirred up a hornets’ nest and taken up valuable time on Report, and unfortunately, because of the timing—it would be wrong, of course, to complain about the selection—we have not been able to discuss everything. We are discussing something that I think is slightly out of scope. I am almost tempted to agree with the Opposition Front Benchers on that. I am not sure that we should necessarily start it at this point. It is something that I will be observing from whatever job I do after leaving this place—in the car park at Tesco or wherever. It is a very important debate about prostitution and it cannot be ignored, but there are two sides to the argument, and I know that even the hon. Members for Slough and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) take slightly different views on it. It is an important discussion that we must have.
When I have previously voted against my party, I was normally also voting against the Labour party, which was in government at the time. In other words, I was part of a tiny minority, which I think is a safe position to be in—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has tutored me well in how to rebel. In many respects the issue of overseas domestic workers, and therefore new clause 2, does not need to be covered in the Bill, because it is a matter of policy. Were I still in a ministerial position, I know that that is how I would explain it to colleagues, saying that this is not the time to deal with the matter. However, I have met too many victims to be able to say that it is a matter for another day. I understand why the Government brought that in, and it was a laudable reason: they thought that it would help the situation. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case and there is a knock-on effect that is not helping those poor, innocent people from overseas.
As a result, I do not think that there will be much success. Unfortunately, the way the political debate on immigration is going at the moment—an important debate, but one in which we must be careful not to become extreme—I do not expect the Government to do a great deal about it this side of an election, if I am honest. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing, and there are some other things that can help. However, if it comes to a vote, regrettably—oh so regrettably—I shall march into the Lobby with the comrades on the other side of the House.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I will take your advice on brevity, Mr Speaker. I rise to support my party’s new clause 1 on gangmasters.
Before I do so, I want to thank many people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, I had the privilege of introducing the private Member’s Bill that became the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. I was greatly supported in that by a number of individuals and organisations, none more so that my own union, Unite, which was absolutely terrific in giving me the support and research that I needed to try to get the Bill through. The National Farmers Union was also extremely helpful in getting it through and in championing the ethical trading initiatives that were around at the time.
One individual who was particularly helpful during that period was the then Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Geraldine Smith, who was extremely supportive in helping me as regards what happened to the cockle pickers. Another individual who was greatly supportive was the then national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, now my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who offered his experience in trying to get the Bill through. Also very helpful and supportive were the legal gangmasters—the guys who operated on a legal basis—because they had operated in a legal field while the other people were undermining them by trying to get labour at cheap prices.
Some organisations, I have to say, were dragged to the negotiations by their fingernails—namely, the major retailers, who really did not want to get involved in this and wanted to exploit the farmers who were engaged in the industry. The farmers were getting a very bad deal from the major retailers, so we made sure that the retailers played ball.
To correct a fact about the gangmasters legislation, the myth is that it was drawn up in response to the tragedy of the Morecambe bay cockle pickers, but in fact it was introduced before that unfortunate incident because Unite had already experienced the inequities that were happening in the construction industry, the care industry, and so on. That is why the Bill was launched some months before the dreadful situation surrounding the Chinese cockle pickers.
Nevertheless, what happened to the cockle pickers was the catalyst in getting support for the Bill. Just imagine, if you will, that you are on a cold, sandy beach surrounded by water that is coming to drown you, you cannot speak English, and there is no one there to take any responsibility for you. All that was left for these people was to use their mobile phones to phone home to China to tell their relatives that they were in the process of dying. The gangmasters who took them on did nothing to help them. That is why the gangmasters Bill was a good and effective piece of legislation, and even now, as we speak, it has the potential to be even better and more effective.
Michael Connarty
Everything that my hon. Friend said about the struggle that he had to convince a number of organisations at the time is true. Does he know that on 21 August the Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Retail Consortium wrote to the Prime Minister in support of proposed amendments to the Bill, and, as part of that submission, called for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to be strengthened and extended to cover hospitality, construction, and many other industries? My hon. Friend has converted a lot of people by showing that his legislation made a difference to people involved with gangmasters.
Jim Sheridan
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the legislation must be extended.
We introduced the gangmasters legislation under a Labour Government, and I have to say that it was extremely difficult to try to convince Ministers that it was the right way to go. We decided to go with it as it stood in terms of the shellfish and agriculture industries, arguing that it should subsequently be extended to other sectors, and the Government said that we could extend it if it worked. In my view, it did work, and we set up the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Prior to that, the gangmasters never paid any tax or national insurance, and neither did the exploited workers. The GLA cleaned its face: it got people to pay income tax and the workers to pay national insurance. In effect, it was a self-funding process. If that rationale were extended to take in construction and the service and hospitality sectors, I think the GLA would be a more effective organisation. The Modern Slavery Bill could have sought to prevent exploitation of forced labour by expanding the remit of the GLA.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I will speak very briefly, but I want to commend the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing in this important Bill.
I vividly remember, more than two years ago, that some of the members of the Southampton Stop the Traffik group came to my constituency surgery to explain in detail some of the problems associated with people trafficking and modern-day slavery in the city and the wider area. When I mentioned those problems to other constituents, they found it shocking and could not believe that it was happening in somewhere such as Romsey. One key problem we face in tackling the scourge of slavery is that in many cases it is out of sight, and therefore very much out of mind.
I have absolutely no intention of being partisan on this issue. As a member of the Public Bill Committee, what came across very clearly to me was the massive consensus for having something on the statute book. It has taken a long time to get to this point—I know that previous Governments wanted to act—and there is a sense of pride that the current Government have brought forward legislation.
It is absolutely imperative to have a law that is practical and pragmatic, that will work and be enforceable, and that does not prescribe too tightly the roles of local authorities and of the anti-slavery commissioner in tackling the problem. We need such flexibility, because you can bet your bottom dollar that those involved in this illegal trade will also be flexible in seeking to find ways around new legislation. I therefore want the role of the anti-slavery commissioner to be able to adapt as time goes on, much as the role of police and crime commissioners is evolving in our counties. As their role evolves, so the anti-slavery commissioner’s role should be truly inventive and of critical importance. The Government are absolutely right to institute that role, but it must be given sufficient flexibility to allow it to develop over time.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We are really short of time in this debate, so I apologise for taking more, Madam Deputy Speaker. If there are any talent spotters on the Government Front Bench, I think the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) has an excellent role in the other place.
I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group—we are writing to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority about the new clauses in this group—but let me say that we have now gone beyond the stage at which we can continue to will the objectives without willing the means. Adequate staff and resources are needed to ensure that the GLA is effective.
To turn briefly to the new clauses and the amendment tabled in relation to prostitution, I apologise to all Members of the House for inundating them with briefings over the past 48 hours. I am very sorry, but this debate came up in a hurry, and it was important to give people the chance to express their views. I have always respected my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is very well intentioned. I support new clause 7 because developing a strategy is critical, and amendment 1, which is the decriminalisation amendment, but I am fundamentally opposed to new clause 6, because it is worrying, counter-productive and dangerous. New clause 22 would give us the opportunity and enough time to undertake a proper review.
I know that sex work is abhorrent for some Members. I must say that in the years since I convened some of the first meetings of the Ipswich Safety First campaign in this House, after five women were killed there, I have met a number of men and women who were not coerced into sex work and do not want their livelihoods to be curtailed by the proposed criminalisation of their clients. It is true that I have met many others who entered prostitution to overcome economic disadvantage—they suffered in poverty to enable them to pay the rent and put food on the table for their children—but that has been made worse by welfare benefit cuts, escalating housing costs and energy bills. The answer is not to criminalise any of their activities, but to tackle the underlying cause by not cutting welfare benefits and ensuring people have an affordable roof over their heads and giving them access to decent, paid employment.
The whole issue has focused on the idea that by stopping the supply of clients, prostitution will somehow disappear, as will all the exploitation, trafficking and violent abuse. The Swedish model has been suggested as an example, but there was absolutely overwhelming opposition to it in the briefings that I have circulated. Those briefings have come from charities such as Scot-Pep—the Scottish Prostitutes Education Project—which is funded by the state; the Royal College of Nursing, the nurses themselves; and the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, which is another Government-funded organisation to get women and others off the game, that nevertheless says that the Swedish model would be counter-productive.
The Home Office has commissioned academic research, and I have circulated a letter from 30 academics from universities around the country that basically says that the proposed legislation is dangerous. We must listen to sex workers: the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Sex Worker Open University, the Harlots collective, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe—flamboyant names, but they represent sex workers, and all are opposed to the criminalisation of clients.
Michael Connarty
Could my hon. Friend quote some sources from Sweden? I understand that in Sweden they do not take that view.
John McDonnell
I will come straight to that point, but let me go through the other organisations we have listened to: lawyers, human rights bodies such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN Aid, and even the women’s institute down in Hampshire—I warn hon. Members never to cross the women’s institute anywhere—as well as members of the Ipswich Safety First coalition who dealt with the deaths those years ago.
What is the consensus? It is that there is no evidence that criminalising clients as in the Swedish legislation reduces the number of either clients or sex workers. I could quote at length—time we have not got—from the Swedish Government’s report that demonstrates that there is no correlation between the legislation they introduced and a reduction in numbers of clients or sex workers.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend said that the Swedish Government have no evidence for that, which is true, but they did have evidence that the number of men who pay for sex in Sweden has gone down significantly.
John McDonnell
That was one survey where men who were asked, “Do you pay for sex, because you could be prosecuted for it?” naturally said no. The evidence has been challenged. The other part of the consensus concerns the argument that other Governments are now acting and following the Swedish model, but South Africa has rejected it, and Scotland rejected it because measures on kerb crawling were introduced. In France, the Senate has rejected that model on the basis that sex workers will be put at risk. There are even threats of legal action in Canada on the issue of the safety and security of sex workers.
The other consensus that has come from these organisations is that not only do such measures not work, they actually cause harm. We know that because we undertook research through the Home Office in 2005-06. What did it say? Sex workers themselves were saying, “It means that we never have time to check out the clients in advance. We are rushed and pushed to the margins of society as a result, which does us harm.”
There are alternatives. I do not recognise the view on the implementation of decriminalisation in New Zealand mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, because all the research says that it is working. Who says that we should look at decriminalisation? It is the World Health Organisation, UN Women and UNAIDS. I circulated a letter from Nigel Richardson, who is not just a lawyer who represents sex workers but also acts as a judge. He says that we can tackle abuse and sexual exploitation with existing laws.
I appeal to the House not to rush to legislate on such a contested issue where there is such conflicting research, evidence and views. New clause 22 would provide a way through as it would enable us to undertake the necessary research, consult, bring forward proposals, and legislate if necessary. I want to include in that consultation the New Zealand model and full decriminalisation. I am not in favour of legalisation; I am in favour of full decriminalisation. On that basis we should listen to those with experience. I convened some meetings with the Safety First coalition to brief Members on what it had done. It invested money in the individuals—£7,000 a prostitute—and it got people out of prostitution by investing money, not by decriminalising them.
Rev. Andrew Dotchin was a founder member of the Safety First coalition. He states:
“I strongly oppose clauses on prostitution in the Modern Slavery Bill, which would make the purchase of sex illegal. Criminalising clients does not stop prostitution, nor does it stop the criminalisation of women. It drives prostitution further underground, making it more dangerous and stigmatising for women.”
I fully support his views.
Mr Burrowes
If I had longer I would list a huge number of women’s organisations, campaign groups and those dealing with the issue that the Bill is supposed to be addressing—human trafficking—that support dealing with demand for prostitution, as that is also a way of dealing with demand for modern slavery. We have dealt with demand in terms of the transparency of supply chains and have sought to deal with the demand for cheap goods that are linked to modern slavery. Similarly, we should deal with the demand linked to trafficking, which includes prostitution.
Karen Bradley
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for tabling measures and speaking in this debate, which covers three extremely important subjects: the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, abuse of overseas domestic workers and prostitution. Given the time available and volume of the debate, I will do my best to address the points that have been made, but I hope Members will forgive me if I do not cover absolutely everything.
First, on the remit and powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, I am grateful for the opportunity to restate that the Government are determined to tackle labour exploitation effectively. As I said in Committee when a similar amendment was tabled, I am sympathetic to Members’ concerns. The GLA does good work in tackling harmful activity within a limited remit, focusing on areas that are potentially vulnerable to exploitation. My mind is not closed to changes to improve how it works—far from it.
The Government support the protections in place for all workers, whichever sector they work in, including minimum wage legislation—we have strengthened the national minimum wage inspections team and quadrupled the maximum fine. The amendments suggest a number of ways in which to change the GLA’s powers and remit.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I am encouraged that the Minister says her mind is open and that there will be further consideration. Can hon. Members take that as a distinct hint for more progress in the Lords?
Karen Bradley
If my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue my comments, I will speak first about new clause 1. The new clause would open the way for the GLA’s remit to be extended to any area of work or sector, which would be a much broader role than its current territory. I have concerns about such a broad role, which I want to put in the context of the Government’s plans to ensure that the GLA delivers its critical role. The GLA is both a licensing and an enforcement body. We need to make progress on both fronts. Licensing can be a blunt instrument in that it affects the compliant business and the rogue gangmaster alike. If a licensing regime is not targeted at known risk factors, it will not provide effective underpinning for enforcement. Therefore, simply extending the current licensing regime into new sectors would not of itself improve efforts to tackle exploitative employers who flout the law.
I want a GLA with a strong anti-slavery and worker exploitation focus that will support the Government’s broader strategy on modern slavery. That will be best achieved by developing an approach that builds on the GLA’s excellent work. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned that the number of GLA investigations had declined over time. I want to put it on the record that, over time, the GLA has undertaken a reduced number of investigations, but they have been more complex and have focused more effectively on serious and organised crime. That reflects a targeted and risk-based enforcement approach.
We can do more to increase the GLA’s reach and effectiveness. We are working with the GLA in three main areas: through the better business compliance partnerships, the review of licensing standards, and work on the supply chain. I do not have time to go through those points in detail.
Looking ahead, the GLA is well placed to tackle the serious worker exploitation that lies between the more technical compliance offences investigated by HMRC and the serious and organised crime addressed by the National Crime Agency. We will consider how to introduce more effective and targeted enforcement action by the GLA. We will also consider changes to the GLA to support its greater role in addressing exploitation. However, we believe this requires a more considered analysis of the types of changes required than simply changing the law today. I believe we should continue the hard work with the GLA rather than simply assuming that the answer is to extend the remit of the GLA beyond the core areas set out in the 2004 Act, as envisaged in the new clause. I therefore hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn feels able to withdraw it.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), he has made some very good points and I would like to discuss many of them with him outside the Chamber. New clause 16 would require formal tenancy agreements where a gangmaster provides accommodation for workers. I reassure him that the GLA already addresses this risk. The current suite of GLA licensing standards already imposes requirements on gangmasters who provide accommodation. Specifically, licensing standards 4.1 and 4.2 require a licence holder who provides, or effectively provides, accommodation to ensure that the property is safe for the occupants. A licence is required by the local authority, for example if it is a licensable house of multiple occupation. This is a critical standard for the GLA, so failure to meet the criteria will mean that a licence application is refused or a licence already issued will be revoked.
There are also existing legal requirements affecting the relationship between tenant and landlord. I believe that these, together with the GLA’s licensing standards, provide strong protection for workers. However, I have considered the amendment in detail and I will ask the GLA to consider adding a tenancy agreement to the documents to be provided to demonstrate compliance with the licensing standard as part of its forthcoming review. In doing so, I also wish to ensure that we are balancing protection from exploitation with our desire to reduce bureaucracy for small businesses.
Stephen Barclay
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I will not be pressing the amendments to a Division. As part of those discussions, may I flag up an area that Anthony Steen has highlighted and which we did not come on to today? What happens when people come out of the shelters after 45 days? What measures might be put in place on that, and is it something on which we could have further discussions?
Karen Bradley
That is a point for the review of the national referral mechanism. The interim report of that review has been issued and the final report will be issued shortly. If my hon. Friend would allow it, we could perhaps discuss this outside the Chamber; I am sure that that would be helpful to both of us.
On overseas domestic workers and new clause 2, I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting individuals who have come to the UK on domestic worker visas. I know that Members feel strongly about this. The Government, and I personally, share their commitment to ensure that no individual in this country is subjected to abuse and exploitation. Holding anyone in modern slavery is totally unacceptable. Overseas domestic workers, like anyone else, deserve protection as well as support and help if abuse takes place. The Bill will give that protection to all victims regardless of who they are, why they are in the UK, for whom they are working or their visa arrangements. We already have a range of measures in place to protect overseas domestic workers and we are intent on strengthening them further.
It is very important that overseas domestic workers know their rights in the UK and where they can seek help. The House will be pleased to know that a pilot is now under way to hand out very simple and easy-to-understand information cards on arrival to the UK, in addition to the information already provided with the visa. I absolutely understand and sympathise with the intention behind new clause 2, but, as I said in Committee, I do not believe it is the solution to those cases where an overseas domestic worker suffers ill treatment in the UK.
I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary sector in supporting domestic workers who have been the subject of abuse or poor working conditions, including that of Kalayaan, which both supports individuals and campaigns on their behalf. One case of abuse is one too many and some of the treatment reported by Kalayaan is absolutely appalling. However, without in any way minimising the distress those individuals have gone through, it is important to remember that those reports are based on a very small number of cases and represent a small proportion of those in the country with an overseas domestic worker visa.
Kalayaan’s figures are based on 120 overseas domestic workers issued with visas after April 2012 who approached it for help over a two-year period. During the same period, more than 30,000 visas were issued. Home Office internal management information suggests that between May 2009 and July 2014, there were 213 confirmed cases of trafficking for domestic servitude involving non-EU nationals. Of these, only 41, or less than 20%, were linked to the overseas domestic worker visa—an average of eight per year.
Focusing on the visa risks obscuring the main issue, which is protecting those at risk of domestic servitude. Our key concern should be that victims understand that they will be believed, that they will receive support and that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. Before the changes in April 2012, the ability to change employer did not prevent instances of abuse and poor treatment, and we have seen no evidence that instances of abuse of those here on overseas domestic worker visas have increased since the right to change employer was removed. Moreover, even while there was a right to change employer, there were still complaints of abuse and poor treatment.
The important point is that we should not be tackling this problem through one, albeit relatively simple, response. We need to look at the underlying problem and tackle it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) made an important point when he said that much of this could be tackled and dealt with through policy changes. That is what I am working on.
In the limited time available, I shall deal with the issue of prostitution.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The debate on prostitution has seen a number of polarised positions, which shows the difficulty of the issue. The major problem is that there is no agreed shared evidence base. In the light of that, I commend to the Minister the report by the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex grade, “Shifting the Burden”, which looks at the matter in detail and supports the amendment proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I know he wanted to get into the debate, which is why I gave way to him. He plays an important role in this policy area. I pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for her tireless campaigning on the issue of prostitution.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
All the peer-reviewed academic evidence is against new clause 6. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) can take it from me as a former criminal justice Minister that the criminal justice system simply could not sustain this measure being put on the statute book.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of legislation going through the Northern Ireland Assembly at this moment. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) tabled new clauses 6 and 7, which she is not going to press, but there is also new clause 22. I urge the House to support that new clause, which would provide a way forward. Will the Minister take into account the issues brought forward through legislative change in the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Karen Bradley
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I discussed this issue with David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, a couple of weeks ago. We spoke about the Modern Slavery Bill, and I am cognisant of the work being done there.
It is clear that there are very polarised views on this issue. The subject of prostitution raises strong feelings, and it is good that we have had the chance to debate it. It is important to remember, however, that this is a Bill to tackle the heinous and horrendous crime of modern slavery, and I want to continue to focus the Bill on modern slavery. I am concerned that any of the amendments relating to prostitution could distract from the important work that the Government are doing. I will reflect on today’s contributions, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments. We need to make sure that the Modern Slavery Bill is focused, targeted and gets on the statute book.
Crispin Blunt
I shall take the remaining minute and a half simply to make the point that the authoritarian, moralistic and un-evidenced potential catastrophe that presents itself as new clause 6 must be opposed. In proposing these provisions, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) complained about the fact that she got on television programmes and then found that her statistics were under dispute. That is hardly surprising, because all the academic evidence is on the other side of the argument.
Crispin Blunt
No, I will not. It takes the scion of a couple of baronetcies with the education of Cheltenham Ladies’ college to produce such a moralistic sense that can define sex work as exploitation—without ever having listened to the sex workers themselves. It is a pity, given the trouble the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) took to draw attention to this group of people, that the hon. Lady did not take the trouble to listen to them. Had she done so, I cannot believe that she would have come to this view because the unintended consequence of her proposal would be to put the people whom she is trying to help in peril. That is a serious mistake.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The injustice and suffering experienced by victims of modern slavery is often difficult to comprehend: young girls raped, beaten and passed from abuser to abuser so that they can be sexually exploited for profit; vulnerable men tricked into long hours of hard labour before being locked away in cold sheds or run-down caravans; people made to work in fields, in factories and on fishing vessels; women forced into prostitution; children forced into a life of crime; and domestic workers imprisoned and made to work all hours of the day and night for little or no pay. Those are the harsh realities of modern day slavery, and those are the crimes taking place not in the distant past, but in towns, cities and villages in Britain today.
That is why this Modern Slavery Bill—the first of its kind in Europe—is so important. It sends out a powerful message about our intent to be at the forefront of this fight and to end this trade in human misery. It will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place in the first place. But most importantly, it will enhance protection and support for the victims of these appalling crimes. Furthermore, in a measure that goes further than any other similar legislation in the world, it will encourage businesses to make sure that supply chains for goods and services sold in the UK are not tarnished by slavery.
Members on both sides of the House have contributed enormously to the Bill, and today we have heard further lively and constructive debate. I thank all those who have played a role in shaping the Bill. In particular, I thank all those who played a part in Committee for their valuable contributions. All those who contributed in Committee and at other stages in the Bill’s passage through the House have ensured that we will have effective legislation to deal with offenders and protect victims. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), in particular, for not only her tireless work but for her passionate commitment to this issue.
I think that the Bill has been greatly improved by its passage through this House, demonstrating the value of parliamentary scrutiny. I pay tribute to the members of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, particularly the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who chaired the Committee, and whose unstinting dedication to the issue has been truly admirable. The Committee held an intensive and thorough inquiry and produced a report that led to significant improvements in the Bill.
I have always been clear that victims must be at the heart of everything we do, and it is imperative that they get the help and support they need and deserve. I commissioned the detailed review of the national referral mechanism to ensure that we provide effective care and support and that all agencies work together in the best interests of victims. The review will be published shortly, and the Government are currently re-tendering the victims care contract. It is also why I put in place a trial scheme of child trafficking advocates so that child victims’ voices are heard and they receive the support and assistance they need in relation to the social care, immigration and criminal justice systems.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening to the Secretary of State with interest. I am pleased to hear that she is putting victims at the very centre of the Bill. Why, then, did the Government turn down Labour’s amendment to make child exploitation part of the Bill?
Mrs May
I say to the hon. Lady, who was, I believe, a member of the Bill Committee and has obviously been working on this with others, that we looked at the issue of child exploitation and took a lot of advice on it. The worry was that if it were referenced in the Bill in the way suggested, that could lead to certain actions and activities falling within the description of child exploitation that were never intended to be part of the Bill. In short, I am afraid that the law of unintended consequences would have kicked in and a disbenefit would have resulted from having that aspect in the Bill.
However, as the hon. Lady knows, we have brought together various offences and made some changes to them in order to clarify some of the issues. There has been genuine debate, in Committee and throughout the stages in this Chamber, on the various issues in the Bill, and I think it is, in a number of aspects, a better Bill as a result. We have responded on the issue of supply chains. We have added the new provision on the statutory defence for victims of modern slavery who are compelled to commit crimes. That includes substantial safeguards against abuse but would not apply to a number of serious offences—mainly violent and sexual offences, as set out in the Bill.
The Bill extends to all modern slavery victims existing provisions that help victims of trafficking to gain access to special measures in court. I hope that that will give victims the confidence to come forward and give evidence.
Sir Edward Garnier
Will my right hon. Friend take time over the next few days to have a look at the record of this afternoon’s debates? I spoke about exploitation by brainwashing. Although that is not yet in the Bill, I hope that at some stage she and her team will consider the inclusion of some sort of offence along those lines. Will she also take this opportunity to mention Mr Anthony Steen, our former colleague, whose work outside Parliament has done a great deal to push this agenda forward?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. and learned Friend. I recognise that we were not able to respond to the specific points that he raised, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or I will write to him about those.
I am indeed happy to pay tribute to the work that has been done by Anthony Steen, who, for a period of time, was my special envoy and produced a number of reports. He went to a number of countries to look at how they were dealing with this issue, and he was able to bring that experience back and help to inform us in dealing with the Bill.
This Bill will stand alongside our wider programme of work to tackle modern slavery nationally and internationally. It is an important step, but if it is to be implemented effectively we need concerted effort from all those involved. That is why we will publish a comprehensive strategy to tackle modern slavery that will complement the legislative framework that we are putting in place.
Mr Burrowes
May I put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary, who withstood and responded to robust challenge and scrutiny in Committee? We have a Bill that is fit for purpose and will no doubt be strengthened further as it goes through the rest of its parliamentary stages. I commend her for her passion and dedication.
The amendment that provides that the anti-slavery commissioner is independent is a welcome addition to the Bill. Will the fact that they are now explicitly independent under the Bill affect the selection process, which I understand has already started with the advertising of the position?
Mrs May
It was always the intention that the anti-slavery commissioner would be independent and that does not affect the selection process. A number of posts within the purview of Government are made by appointment. In my own area, for example, they are appointed by the Home Secretary. I assure my hon. Friend that those individuals remain fiercely independent in the work that they do. For example, I do not think that anybody has ever suggested that the appointment by the Home Secretary of the chief inspector of borders and immigration leads to him being anything other than extremely independent in his reports.
I want to mention one other aspect. I am clear that we must strengthen our law enforcement response. I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency and we are working with international law enforcement agencies to target organised criminal gangs. The UK is leading a group of international law enforcement chiefs, the Santa Marta group, which will strengthen and co-ordinate our response to modern slavery internationally. The members of the Santa Marta group will meet again in London in December.
As I have said, modern slavery is an appalling crime that crushes lives and strips people of their dignity. More than 200 years ago, this House passed historic legislation to make the slave trade illegal. Sadly, the fight against slavery is not at an end. This Bill will ensure that we can continue that fight against the slave drivers and traffickers, and release innocent people from slavery and servitude so that they can be returned to freedom. I commend this Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This is an important Bill, which we support, but it does not go far enough. The Home Secretary was right to talk about the horrors of modern slavery, but she was too complacent about how far the Bill will go in acting as a solution to those problems. Time and again, she has turned down the opportunity to strengthen the Bill. So much more could be done—and I hope it will —before it returns to us from the other place.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for scrutinising the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I also thank all members who served on the Committee and the members of the cross-party Joint Committee, including my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who have continued to improve the Bill and argue for the changes required.
The horrors of modern slavery in the 21st century are still with us and the Home Secretary is right to raise such concerns about them. Victims include children forced into servitude or to tend cannabis farms; grown men exploited and held in dreadful, inhuman conditions, labouring under gangs; and women raped, beaten and pimped into prostitution. They are trafficked by gangs across borders or around the country, used and abused, their basic humanity denied.
The Home Secretary is right to say that action is needed to introduce a Bill that builds on the work not only of Anthony Totnes, but of the previous Government, who criminalised trafficking in 2003, introduced the new offence of forced labour, slavery or servitude in 2009 and created the national referral mechanism and the UK Human Trafficking Centre. It is also right to introduce new offences, a new commissioner and the new civil orders. However, if this Bill is such a powerful signal and a chance to lead the world, it should also be chance to go so much further.
The former Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, has said that the Bill in its current form is a “lost opportunity”:
“The bill is wholly and exclusively about law enforcement—but it shouldn’t be enforcement-based, it should be victim-based. We have majored on the wrong thing. It is positive in the sense that it is an entirely new initiative, but is it going to do anything?”
That is the challenge from Anthony Totnes to all of us, and we should seize the opportunity to go further.
Sir John Randall
I hope the right hon. Lady realises that it is Anthony Steen, not Anthony Totnes. The quotation she cites relates to an early stage of the Bill and I know, because I am in constant touch with Anthony Steen, that, although there are some things to be addressed, that view was from some time ago.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in this subject and he did an immense amount of work on the Joint Committee. I thank him for his clarification. It shows that I still have the unfortunate habit, which we can so easily fall into in this place, of naming people by their constituencies, rather than by their surnames. I reiterate my tribute to—
Yvette Cooper
Yes, I reiterate my tribute to John Uxbridge, and to the former Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, whom we all hold in high regard. The trouble is that the Bill has not changed very much during its passage. There have been some significant and welcome changes, but it still does not go far enough.
On law enforcement, the main offences at the heart of the Bill, particularly in clause 2, are not strong or simple enough to ensure that we can prosecute the criminals who drive this evil trade. It is such a shame that the Government have not listened to all those calling for separate offences of trafficking and exploitation, and for separate offences for children. We know that the law fails to protect children, and this is an opportunity to strengthen the law through a separate offence of child exploitation. I really hope that the other place will take that chance. I urge the Home Secretary to give this matter further consideration and I urge the Government to respond in the other place.
Jim Shannon
Last year, 2,744 people were trafficked across the United Kingdom, of whom 602 were children. Is the right hon. Lady aware of the legislative change made in Northern Ireland on human trafficking and exploitation? The legislation sets in place terminology and change that could be a precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom. Does she think that that is worth considering?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right. We know that the issue crosses borders and exists in different areas, so we should look at such legislation. We all know that the most vulnerable people who are so abused by this evil trade are children, so we should do as much as we possibly can to ensure that they get the additional protection they need and deserve. That is why the Government should really look at this again.
We welcome some of the changes that the Government have started to make on supply chains. We hope that they will go further—we will look at the details of their proposals—because none of us should ever tolerate the seafood on our supermarket shelves or the fashion clothes on our rails being stained with the sweat and blood of slaves overseas, and our companies should never participate in that kind of slavery.
Why do the Government not go further and help domestic workers? Their visa reforms have made things worse, trapping more domestic workers into slavery. Why will they not admit that they have got things wrong and look at that again? Why will they not do more to help victims—the most important thing of all—through guardians, strengthened referral mechanisms and the anti-slavery commissioner? We hope that the other place will consider what more can be done to improve support for victims. Why do the Government not look further at the links between trafficking and prostitution, which also drive the evil trade?
Rarely has a Bill had such overwhelming support from Members on both sides of the House, but also caused so much frustration. It could go further, and it could do more. There can be no half-measures. This is about stopping evil people committing terrible crimes, ending the enslavement, abuse and degradation of modern-day slavery, and defending the rights of liberty and freedom that we in this country have championed for so long. Let us hear the words of one victim:
“I was trafficked. I was fooled. I was deceived”—
with someone—
“forcing me to work on the streets, beating me up, force feeding me and turning me into someone with no mind of my own. Death too often felt like my only way to escape…but I am a survivor. I have a new life but I am haunted by the faces of those who used me”.
For such victims and survivors, we must do more.
Sir John Randall
I want quickly to congratulate the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), as well as all those with whom I have served on a variety of Committees on this subject, in which I am now totally immersed. Of course we could always go further, but I think that we have gone a huge way, and a lot further than we thought we would get. There is an opportunity at the end of the building, but we must not waste it, because with an election coming up, time is not on our side.
If we are to get more traffickers behind bars, we must concentrate—and these are the words that really matter—on victims, victims, victims. That is the key to it all. We must also utilise the vast skills, expertise and good will of non-governmental organisations and civil society. Many of the victims are frightened of Governments and law enforcement and we must recognise that what victims are used to in their own countries is not necessarily the same as they experience here.
As I am shortly to leave this place, I think the one thing that I can be sure of is that this was the finest hour in all my time here.
Jim Shannon
I have a couple of quick points but I shall try to leave time for other Members. I did not get a chance to contribute on Second Reading, so I wish to mention the clear case for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in new clause 22. That sets an example for the rest of the United Kingdom and should be part of how the Bill proceeds. We also want the anti-slavery commissioner to be introduced.
Let me put into perspective the importance of what happened in the Northern Ireland Assembly in the recent Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill. With the exception of 10 Assembly Members, Members across the Chamber supported the Bill—they cannot agree on welfare reform, but they can agree on that Bill, which I thought was interesting.
One point that was mentioned—although perhaps not as much as I would have hoped—is the fact that it is not always foreign citizens who are trafficked. Some British citizens in the United Kingdom are being trafficked—men for labour and girls for sex. Another issue that I hope will be considered at a later stage concerns students, some of whom have been forced into the sex trade as the best way to pay their student fees. Such issues cannot be ignored by the House and those outside it, and we must consider the effect on students and those who are forced by unscrupulous people—pimps—who are prepared to pay up to 100% of their tuition fees. Although new clause 22 may not have been supported by the House tonight, there will be chances in another place to do that, and when the Bill comes back we will get it right.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I will leave time, I hope, for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field).
We have moved a long way during the passage of the Bill, and I welcome every step. We are very near to having a world-class Bill, but we are not there yet. I hope that the Home Secretary will read the debate and listen to what was said about the Gangmaster Licensing Authority in particular, and about exploitation as a separate offence. There is still considerable work to do, but I commend the ministerial team for their work, the way they have listened, and the way this Bill has progressed through the House.
Mr Frank Field
I underscore that last comment, which is immensely important. This has been the most open conversation on a Bill that I have experienced in my time in the House.
Fifteen months ago there was no talk of this Bill, and tonight there are a few scratchy comments about whether it could be an even better world-class Bill—it will be when it leaves the other place. There are three tasks to do, and they are the difficult tasks as opposed to getting a world-class Bill. One is about victims, and that immensely difficult task will take time and resources. There is also the question of how we educate a new consumer movement, so that consumers enforce the Bill by refusing to touch goods and services made by slaves. The Secretary of State will have a world-class Bill, so I hope she will take it to the Commonwealth and enliven that body. Many of the supply routes to this country for slavery are from Commonwealth countries. Since the overthrow of apartheid, the Commonwealth has lacked a huge moral task with which to get involved, and I think this issue will be that. I thank the Home Secretary for her openness. Some of the concessions that she made, such as on supply chains, are ones that she wanted to give anyway.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
We now come to motions 4 and 5 on investigatory powers.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Investigatory Powers
That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance and Property Interference: Code of Practice) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.
That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 22 July, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now come to motions 6, 7 and 8 on terms and conditions of employment.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft Shared Parental Leave Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
That the draft Maternity and Adoption Leave (Curtailment of Statutory Rights to Leave) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Value Added Tax
That the Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Services) (Exceptions Relating to Supplies Not Made to Relevant Business Person) Order 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2726), dated 13 October 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Impact of New Housing in Longridge, Clitheroe and Whalley
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I rise today to present a petition from the residents of Longridge and Whittingham, and other residents of the Ribble Valley. There has been a deluge of planning applications to build thousands of houses in my area, and in neighbouring areas under Preston council control but affecting Longridge in the Ribble Valley. Whalley has had several hundred houses foisted upon it on appeal. Clitheroe is the same. Barrow will be transformed—at the moment, it is a small village of about 300 houses—to take 504 more houses on appeal, with 65 other houses approved and further applications in the pipeline. Other villages are suffering planning pressures.
Councillors are exasperated and council officers are overrun with work. The public are frustrated that their voice is thwarted by planning inspectors. The council is strapped for cash defending expensive appeals. Their cry is simply this: enough is enough. I back them 100%. This is their plea to the Government today via a petition signed by 1,065 local residents.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of Longridge, Whittingham and the Ribble Valley Parliamentary Constituency,
Declares that the small rural towns and villages like Longridge, Clitheroe and Whalley up and down the country are under siege from housing developers seeking to build excessive numbers of homes to encourage people to migrate from industrial towns and cities to rural communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons recognises the problems of these communities like Longridge where developers are seeking to build 2,300 houses and amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:
(a) Suspend the operation of clauses 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Forum until 90% of local authorities have an approved local development plan so there is no presumption in favour of planning consent where a local authority does not have an approved Local Development Plan or 5 years of development land and
(b) Allow local communities divided by a local government boundary to be treated as one entity for planning purposes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001395]
Internet Abuse of Members of Parliament
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I wish to raise the problems that Members of the House and many more people in our communities face from the abuse of social media. For me, and probably for all hon. Members, social media has huge benefits. It is a great liberator and gives many new opportunities to people throughout the world to communicate in different ways. However, it has a small but vicious and nasty downside. Indeed, having called the debated, I noted a story in the newspapers. Mr Yaya Touré, a footballer, went back on to Twitter after five months and was immediately viciously abused by racists. Mr Robert Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, said this morning that internet companies are in denial over the use of the internet by terrorists and criminals.
We have seen the most grotesque misuse of the right of freedom of expression by individuals using the internet in a series of cases affecting Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who successfully prosecuted, said that
“the authorities didn’t even know how to begin investigating whether one person was sending these messages”—
the abusive, hateful and violent messages she was receiving—
“or many individuals”.
The grotesque racist abuse from a whole range of people in the past few weeks aimed at my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has been a factor in my request to Mr Speaker to grant this debate. On Saturday, 10 people were arrested as a direct consequence of issues raised on the internet. When I had the temerity to raise the issue on a point of order in the House, I received the most extraordinary fake messages, allegedly in my name, which were deliberately meant to upset, alienate and aggrieve individuals in the community: incendiary words that were fiction and mere lies—nothing I would ever contemplate saying—but put up by one of these individuals in my name and then spread by others across the internet. There has been an arrest in the past few days.
The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, which I chair, and the Anti-Defamation League in the US, have spent the past four years agreeing best practice for responding to cyber-hate. A whole range internet providers—Google, Twitter, YouTube, PayPal, Facebook—have agreed five procedures for internet providers:
“Providers should take reports about cyberhate seriously, mindful of the fundamental principles of free expression, human dignity, personal safety and respect for the rule of law.”
The last three are being violated repeatedly, both in relation to Members and to people—far more people—outside this House. What the internet companies and law enforcement companies are doing in this country is insufficient.
The second guideline states:
“Providers that feature user-generated content should offer users a clear explanation of their approach to evaluating and resolving reports of hateful content, highlighting their relevant terms of service.”
Having had this happen against me and seeing it against others, I have no idea what those terms are. They are not upfront. They are not available for people to see. No one has a clue what the internet companies claim to be doing about it.
The third guideline states:
“Providers should offer user-friendly mechanisms and procedures for reporting hateful content.”
I would advise anyone to take as an example Twitter. To know how to use Twitter’s response one has to be something of a computer expert. It is not user-friendly and it is not immediately available for those being harassed on the internet by others, sometimes in a criminal way.
The fourth guideline states:
“Providers should respond to user reports in a timely manner.”
Even when the police use requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Twitter, Facebook and others, they go to the United States, or even Europe where the companies have their headquarters, rather than have them agreed in this country, This delays hugely the ability of the police to gain the information even to contemplate prosecuting.
Fifthly:
“Providers should enforce whatever sanctions their terms of service contemplate in a consistent and fair manner”.
I am not suggesting, and nobody else is, a hierarchy of victims or any special privileged treatment for MPs, but the fact is that Members of Parliament are receiving the most grotesque and criminal hate abuse on the internet. If that can be done to Members of Parliament, can we imagine what is being done to people out in the community? I am now hearing countless examples of the most extraordinary abuse even of tiny children and of victims being abused when the victim complains. Businesses are another example, with people’s businesses torn apart by abuse on the internet.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tireless work in this area. Does he agree with me that we must have in mind those people to whom he alludes and who are not in this House and have to suffer in silence and in isolation? They often have no support, and these people should be at the forefront of our minds. We need to do everything we possibly can to tackle this issue for them.
John Mann
A system that would work for a Member of Parliament at the top of society—as, in reality, we are—should and must also work for anybody in society. We have the ability to fight back against this abuse. We have the ability to contact the police at a senior level and immediately. I shall come on to what can and should be done even for Members of Parliament, but for people being bullied, intimidated and criminally harassed by people on the internet, there is very little ability and very little knowledge to respond, largely because the internet companies do not take their responsibilities seriously. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are behind the times when it comes to dealing with this problem.
Social media is regarded as a communication tool, but it is also a search engine. Others are going in and seeing what is there. It is used to incite, as happened in the case with me, or to organise, in the case of others, and often goes far beyond the initial expression to cause further damage at the aimed-for victim. There are real-life consequences—huge, real-life consequences—and lack of resource is not a defence that these social media companies can use.
We have seen racist and anti-Semitic abuse with people weighing in across the world, with the most extraordinary stuff being put up in their own domains in their own countries, but linking together because they have been brought together using social media. Then the opportunity is taken to target individuals and to repeat target them, with groups of people joining in the cyber-bullying and harassment, including criminal harassment. Some examples are potentially within the reach of our law enforcement, but others are well beyond it.
Even when there have been convictions—actual convictions for doing this in the most extraordinary and horrific ways to members of the public—Twitter and Facebook, to name but two, have not taken down the associated Twitter and Facebook accounts when people were convicted of abuse on the basis of evidence that those two companies helped to provide. So the culprits continue to glory in that abuse and repeat it against other victims. Something is seriously and significantly wrong with how these internet companies are dealing with the problem, but it can be seen, too, in the sanctions used by the courts and requested by the police in this country.
We need simple systems to report abuse. They should be simple to the police and authorities in this country and simple to the internet companies. We need internet companies that can be contacted directly and that do not hide away so that no one knows who runs them. I am told by these companies that it is very easy to write simple algorithms that can deal with such problems. Why, then, are these algorithms not being used, particularly where abuse has been reported and a conviction has been made?
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a point about simplicity. That is vital, as it will help all of us who want to stand with the victims of abuse to report it quickly, easily and simply to keep others safe.
John Mann
Where individuals set up multiple accounts, Twitter finds it impossible to deal with that. That shows a lack of will. In law, there is an ability to ban or block individuals on social media in relation to sexual offences. This needs to be widened to all bullying and harassment on the internet where it can be shown in a detailed way that individuals have taken a considered and determined view in advance to exploit the networks to harm others. These rules should apply in all forms of harassment and abuse.
Why are we not using internet banning orders, ASBO equivalents for social media? If we can ban people from going to a certain pub or a certain football match, or any football match, or into this town or that locality, the same should be done to specific parts of social media or, if necessary, the internet as a whole. The powers exist in law but if the police were to ask for such powers and if those powers were to be implemented by the courts as part of prosecutions, there would be more ability to close down those who refuse to be tolerant and decent and who are criminal abusers of the existing law. We do not need new law. We need the current law to be used imaginatively to remove profiles from the internet, to delete accounts and to stop people continuing their abuse in exactly the same way as the police can confiscate hardware and so on. But we know how easy it is for people to switch to other mobiles or to internet cafes to continue and they are doing that.
This is not simply about using the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003. It is about public order and harassment and those laws and those powers should be available. We need to see this as serious and major crime, not as a minor problem. Some of the abuse that we receive may be unpleasant but it does not cross the threshold. We are not talking about idiots giving us general grief on the internet. We are not talking about special privileges for MPs. We are talking about everyone, including MPs; where there is serial harassment and attempts to incite, including potentially to incite violence. We are talking about that being acted upon.
The parliamentary authorities need to get their act together in dealing with this. This is a workplace. If we are abused, insulted or threatened, and our staff and our families receive similar, they need to be doing more. Communities need to be doing more. I am critical of those, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who said how sorry they were but did not step up to the mark in suggesting solutions and providing solidarity and support, which should be automatic.
Finally, the political parties are not stepping up to the mark when one of their members is being abused in this way. It is being dismissed as par for the course and part of the general thing. We hear that it is not nice or pleasant but is something that is less than other criminal harassment. It is not. It is a fundamental part of criminal harassment. People out there—non-MPs—have had their lives ruined by this. That is why what happens to MPs, as with the rest of the community, needs to be dealt with more effectively in here and in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. We would all agree that the passion with which he has spoken is abundantly clear and sends out a powerful message on what he passionately believes in, which many of us in the Chamber share. I also pay tribute to the work he has done in this field, which I know he will continue. As he has pointed out, such attacks are particularly abhorrent, and can cause serious distress to the victims, whoever they may be—Members of Parliament or members of the public. I share his concern about the distress and fear that such actions can inflict. No one should have to deal with such abuse.
Let me first make it absolutely clear that anyone who has been a victim of internet abuse should not hesitate to contact the police. The recent convictions of a man for sending an anti-Semitic message directed at the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), and of another who had been found guilty of sending abusive messages to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) after she had supported a feminist campaign, demonstrate the seriousness with which the police and prosecutors take such crimes, and their willingness to take appropriate action.
In June last year, following consultation, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. As with all cases, prosecutions are subject to the two-stage test of whether there is sufficient evidence and whether a prosecution is in the public interest. The guidelines specify that, when considering whether communications sent via social media are capable of amounting to criminal offences, prosecutors should make an initial assessment of the content of the communications and the conduct. Prosecutions may be brought in relation to material when there is a credible threat of violence, when communications specifically target an individual or individuals and may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, when communications breach a court order, or when communications may be considered so grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false as to justify prosecution.
Those guidelines seek to strike the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality. They make clear that, while not every communication that causes offence or is controversial or unpopular would justify criminal proceedings, the criminal law is available to tackle abuse that is targeted or of a seriously offensive nature. I therefore urge anyone who has been a victim of such abuse to come forward, in the knowledge that the authorities understand the gravity of that kind of behaviour.
As Members may know, and as those guidelines from the Crown Prosecution Service make clear, a number of offences may be committed by those who abuse others over the internet, including those who abuse members of Parliament. I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about inactivity in some cases, but I assure him that the Government are working and engaging with social media platforms, the police and other stakeholders with a view to trying to improve the position. It is by no means perfect, but we are working hard to try to make it a great deal better than it is at present.
There is, of course, plenty of legislation to deal with issues such as this. Internet communication that is grossly offensive or menacing may constitute the commission of an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 127(1) makes it an offence to send, or cause to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The offence does not require an intention to cause anxiety or distress to be proven, and the message does not have to be sent to a specific person. Section 127(2) contains a separate offence of misusing a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, either by sending or causing to be sent a false message or by persistently making use of the network. The maximum penalty for offences under section 127 is six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Sending, delivering or transmitting an indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false message, or something that is of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, to another, including by means of the internet, is an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, provided that the material is sent with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to a person to whom it is communicated, or to any other person to whom the sender intends it or its contents or nature to be communicated. Even if the content does not meet the threshold required by those offences, internet abuse could still amount to an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if carried out on more than one occasion. Section 2 of that Act makes it an offence for someone to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment. Section 4 makes it an offence if the defendant’s course of conduct causes someone to fear that violence will be used against them and he or she knows or ought to know that the course of conduct will cause that fear. The maximum penalty for a harassment offence under section 2 is six months’ imprisonment or a level 5 fine, which is up to £5,000, or both. The offence under section 4 carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. A court sentencing for an offence may also make a restraining order, the breach of which is an offence with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Where the offence is motivated by the victim’s race or religion, the court can take this into account as an aggravating factor and reflect this in the sentence, something we saw recently in the case concerning the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
Let me be clear: the Government are not complacent. Changes to the law contained in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, currently being considered in the House of Lords, will increase the maximum penalty for offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 from six months to two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. The offence in section 1 of the 1988 Act is currently a summary-only offence, which means that it can be dealt with only in the magistrates court. As a summary-only offence, prosecutions must be brought within six months. The changes being taken forward in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill also mean more serious offences can be dealt with in the Crown court and that there will not be a time limit for bringing prosecutions, allowing more time for offences to be investigated.
Alongside this, the Government are extending the time within which prosecutions under the Communications Act 2003 may be brought, to allow up to three years, as opposed to the previous six-month limit, to bring prosecutions against people for using the internet, social media or mobile phones to send menacing messages, so long as prosecutions are brought within six months of the prosecutor having sufficient knowledge to justify proceedings. These changes come on top of a raft of Government measures to support victims. Next year, victims’ rights to tell the court how their crime has affected them will be set out in statute, a new nationwide victims information service will be set up to ensure better information and support, and millions of pounds will be invested in improving the court experience.
Where abusive behaviour has occurred on social networking sites, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. This includes acting quickly to assess the report, removing content which does not comply with the acceptable use policies or terms and conditions in place and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those breaching the rules in place. The Government have worked with social media to ensure that their practices are sufficiently robust to address online abuse quickly and effectively, and we will continue to do that work. Let me also be clear that online abuse is just as illegal as communications that are offline. The measures also include working with the main companies to simplify and highlight their reporting processes so that users can make reports easily, as well as ensuring that their own guidelines are readily accessible and publicised widely, so that users are aware of the service they can expect.
I hope that I have been able to assure the House that the Government take the concerns expressed today very seriously, and that we already have a strong framework of offences, which we are seeking to strengthen by further legislative changes. The Government will continue to work with social media and the internet industries in the interests of the public, as this is an important and developing area of policy. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to addressing online abuse in all its forms.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the abuse that Members of Parliament receive, and his points have certainly been taken on board. The law applies as much to us as it does to members of the public. Indeed, we have seen recent examples of the law being used to secure the convictions of members of the public who were seeking to abuse Members of Parliament. I thank him again for raising this important subject on the Floor of the House tonight. I know that it will continue to merit attention from colleagues on both sides of the House, because it is an immensely important subject that continues to change in the fast-moving internet arena. For our part, the Government will continue to monitor the situation and to do whatever we can to ensure that Members of Parliament and members of the public are kept as safe as possible from the abuse that is currently out there.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Animal Slaughter (Religious Methods)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his place. I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me time for this vital debate. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), here.
When the all-party group on beef and lamb, of which I am honoured to be the chairman, decided to conduct an inquiry into the welfare of animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, I knew we were entering a highly polarised and often poorly understood area of public discourse. Discussions in the media have often produced more heat than light, and I hope the group’s report and today’s debate will provide more of the latter.
There are no easy solutions to what is legally, scientifically and culturally a complicated set of circumstances. However, given the legitimate concerns of the public, animal welfare organisations and religious communities, it is worth having the debate in a calm and transparent way. For that reason, the group proceeded on the basis that the inquiry’s ultimate aim should be to improve animal welfare at the time of slaughter. Throughout the inquiry, we were careful to make distinctions between halal and shechita, the different methods of non-stun slaughter and the species being considered. We took evidence, in writing and in oral evidence sessions, from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry experts, Shechita UK, the Halal Food Authority, veterinary professionals, the Minister and the European Commission.
European law requires that all animals are stunned before slaughter. However, a derogation permits member states to allow non-stunning in the case of slaughter in observance with religious beliefs. That is an important point. By law, animals have to be stunned before slaughter to ensure they suffer as little pain as possible, and the relevant laws were informed by scientific and veterinary evidence. Halal and shechita methods of slaughter are exempt from those scientifically established regulations not because they meet a different set of animal welfare standards, but because they are a matter of freedom of religious and cultural expression. In an ideal world, I would like all livestock to be stunned before slaughter, but that must be reconciled with the United Kingdom’s proud record of religious tolerance and our history of allowing communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their faith.
The report has identified several areas where greater research is needed, and I hope the Government take our recommendations on board when considering regulations on food labelling and welfare at the time of slaughter. As we move forward, it is particularly important to note that, under the halal method of slaughter, the animal must be killed as a result of a sharp blade cutting its jugular vein, so that death is caused by bleeding out. The way the animal dies is important, and there is much diversity of opinion among UK Muslims on whether stunned slaughter is halal. Some in the Muslim community believe that there is a danger that stunning the animal will result in its being killed by the stunning rather than by bleeding out, and that stunning is therefore not halal.
About 90% of lambs and 88% of chickens slaughtered under halal are stunned before slaughter, so the likelihood and duration of pain at the time of slaughter is likely to be much less. However, that still leaves a large number of animals that are not stunned before slaughter. It is estimated that 3% of cattle, 10% of sheep and goats, and 4% of poultry slaughtered in Great Britain are not pre-stunned. One estimate is that 114 million animals are killed annually in the UK using the halal method, while a further 2.1 million are killed under the shechita method. The value of the halal market is estimated at between £1 billion and £2 billion.
Being able to prove that the stun is recoverable and will not kill the animal, but will instead render it insensitive to pain, is vital if we are to increase the number of animals stunned before slaughter. Some witnesses we took evidence from will accept no stunning during the slaughtering process, while others, including the Halal Food Authority, will permit some, but not all, methods of stunning.
We took evidence, for example, on the use of post-cut stunning—stunning immediately after the animal’s neck is cut. Although it is not as desirable as pre-stunning, evidence from studies in New Zealand shows that post-cut stunning reduces the duration of pain at the time of slaughter, while ensuing that the cause of death is bleed-out, making this method of stunning halal-compliant.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Gentleman did in chairing the all-party group. Some of the evidence we received showed that New Zealand has developed a process called “stun to live”. An animal that has been stunned is used to demonstrate that if it is not slaughtered, it will regain consciousness and continue to live. That is satisfactory to some Muslim people.
Neil Parish
That was exactly what we heard. The crux of the matter is that any stunning that takes place under a halal system must be recoverable to be seen as halal-compliant. Not all in the Muslim community agree with that, but many do, and I would like the Government to do more research on that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The inquiry highlighted that the majority of studies have been about halal slaughter. There is therefore a deficit in our veterinary understanding of the shechita method of slaughter in the Jewish community, which permits no form of stunning. In its evidence, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it had sought to include the shechita method of slaughter in its studies, but that it had not yet been successful in doing so. I therefore urge the Government to carry on that work and to look at the shechita method.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I declare an interest in the agri-food business. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on the work he has done on the issue. Does he accept that those who export meat right across the world are put in a difficult position? They want to ensure the welfare of the animal, which is vital, but they are forced to go down a certain route when they export. They also have to look after their employees. In order to win contracts, therefore, they sometimes have to change their methods.
Neil Parish
There is a balance to be struck. New Zealand exports a lot of meat to the middle east. It still does partial stunning, and the Muslim community seems largely to accept that. Work can therefore be done on the issue. There is also an argument that stunning in the slaughterhouses makes things easier and safer for the slaughtermen. There are therefore issues about the welfare not only of the animals, but of those doing the slaughtering.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I add my congratulations on the way my hon. Friend chaired the work on this fairly balanced report. One of the issues that we did not get to the bottom of, certainly in the meetings I attended, was the sheer scale of mis-stunning. That was raised by Shechita UK. Nowhere did there seem to be any particular figures on how much mis-stunning there is.
Neil Parish
Yes. I am hoping that in a moment the Minister with responsibility for farming will give us more figures. I think we should have closed circuit television cameras in all slaughterhouses, whether they are using shechita or halal methods, or stun systems for the general meat trade. I think that the amount of mis-stunning is sometimes exaggerated. On the other hand, mis-stunning of animals should not happen. It is very bad animal welfare, and we need to stamp it out. We need to be certain how big the problem is. If the system of stunning in a slaughterhouse is not correct, it should be replaced. I have no time for mis-stunning.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend works closely with the British Veterinary Association, for which I am sure we all have the highest regard. Is it the case that if an animal is stressed, that is reflected in the state of the meat? Is that not damaging for the market?
Neil Parish
Yes; my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, makes an interesting point. We believe that if an animal is stressed, there will be an effect on the flavour of the meat. It is in the interest of not only the animal but the industry to make sure that it is as little stressed as possible when it comes through the slaughterhouse, but of course, the act of slaughter is in itself very difficult.
The revelations of horsemeat contamination in 2013 highlighted the importance that consumers place on the origin of their food, and the trust that they place in retailers to guarantee that. When that trust is broken, it is felt across the industry. An animal passes through a number of stages from the farm gate to the fork. That is why it is important that the meat should be properly labelled to allow consumers of all faiths to make informed decisions when they buy their meat. It is the all-party group’s belief that labelling should be considered, and it should be on the basis of stun or non-stun methods—not halal versus kosher—because consumers are thought to have a sufficient understanding of what the terms “stunned” or “non-stunned” mean. The group believes, however, that more work can be done to clarify, for consumers of halal and kosher meat, and the wider public, what the terms entail, specifically. That applies particularly to halal, where there is disagreement about the permissibility of stunning, as I mentioned earlier.
The report also makes a recommendation for research to be reviewed and new research to be undertaken where necessary to determine the effect of stunning on the residual blood content left in meat, in comparison with that produced from slaughter without stunning.
Roger Williams
I was very pleased by the all-party group’s conclusion that meat should be labelled as stunned or non-stunned. That will give consumers greater understanding. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the hospitality trade—restaurants and pubs where meat is served—it is sometimes very difficult for traceability to be established for consumers?
Neil Parish
That is a good point. The labelling system is more difficult in the case of restaurant meat, processed meat, and meat products. We need to remember that quite a lot of meat from animals slaughtered in the halal system and the shechita system—the kosher system—does not land up in that particular food chain. Quite a lot of it goes into the general meat trade. That is an issue that requires us to think seriously about labelling.
In addition to existing research, a report has recently been published by Colin Brewer, an academic psychiatrist, and Peter Osin, a consultant pathologist, comparing halal and kosher beef with ordinary beef and a piece of venison from a shot deer. Microscopic slides revealed that they all retained similar amounts of red blood cells. Their report concluded:
“If ritual slaughter not only causes levels of avoidable pain and distress to meat animals...but also fails in its stated purpose of removing as much blood as possible, compared with other methods, then it becomes more difficult to justify and defend”.
There are measures that the Government can introduce in the short term to help improve the welfare of animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. First, the Government should review whether compulsory CCTV in abattoirs should be introduced to make sure that there is oversight and that guidance is being followed for all—I emphasise that I mean all—methods of slaughter. There must also be a review of the current guidance available to operators conducting religious slaughter. There is some guidance available, but during the inquiry we were concerned about the lack of guidance that we found on the actual methods of cutting the neck of the animal. Providing greater guidance would undoubtedly minimise the risk of mis-slaughtering and reduce the duration of pain felt.
The Food Standards Agency does not publish information on the number of mis-slaughtered animals, and holds details only of when mis-cuts have occurred—not of whether the associated slaughter was carried out using a stun or non-stun process. That makes it hard to judge its effectiveness and how it compares with different stunning methods. What is clear is that there are gaps in our understanding of the slaughter process. Our inquiry identified several areas where more research is needed, such as on the measurement of pain in animals at the time of slaughter and on demonstrating the recoverability of certain stunning methods to reassure religious communities that they are compatible with their religion.
There is a danger that an outright ban on religious slaughter would not improve the welfare of animals at the point of slaughter. At the moment about 80% of the halal meat produced in this country has been stunned. Driving our halal and shechita meat industry abroad to countries without our robust animal welfare standards and our supply chain traceability might result in more animals being slaughtered without stunning.
I want to thank Weber Shandwick, which is retained by EBLEX, the organisation for beef and lamb levy payers in England, to act as the all-party group’s secretariat. I thank all the individuals and organisations who submitted written evidence and who appeared before our oral evidence sessions, as well as the other members of the all-party group. My particular respect goes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who attended all our meetings. We conducted the inquiry in a pretty cool, calm way, and took some good evidence. I hope that the Minister will take many of our points on board. We present our report as a serious piece of work. I should like there to be some animal welfare benefit, and to be able to deal with our Muslim and Jewish communities to find a way forward, so that more animals will be stunned at slaughter.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate runs till 11 o’clock and I want to call the Front-Bench spokesmen no later than 10.40, and ideally before then. Six hon. Members want to speak, and perhaps they will be aware of timing when they make their remarks.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate. I particularly welcome his opening comments that the debate should be conducted calmly and transparently, as he did in the presentation of his case, and it is important that that approach is maintained. I want to draw attention to some issues relating to shechita, Jewish laws on slaughter methods. Muslims have similar concerns, but I will confine my remarks to Jewish methods of slaughter and kashrut.
My first point is that this issue is very important to the whole Jewish community. It recognises its rights as part of British society as well as enabling individual Jewish people who observe the laws of kashrut to eat meat and poultry. Any interference with their ability to do so would be a gross infringement of civil rights. The Jewish laws of kashrut are part of a wider concern for animal welfare. Shechita is carried out by trained, licensed experts. Animals are killed by a single cut to the throat in a prescribed way from a special surgically sharp knife that is regularly inspected. Blood flow to the brain is immediately cut off with consequential inability to feel pain and subsequent rapid death. There are too many other rules of kashrut to enumerate here, but it is important to point out that they are all related to enhancing animal welfare.
Criticism of Jewish methods of slaughter, of shechita, claims or often assumes that other methods of slaughter are more humane. Those other methods include stunning by penetrative bolt or by electrocution. They include chickens being shackled by their ankles and dipped into a weather bath and electrocuted, and pigs herded into a room and gassed. None of those methods are pleasant.
What are the facts about allegations of cruelty in Jewish methods of slaughter compared with other methods? It is important to recognise, as has happened in this debate, that mechanical stunning has a high failure rate. Many more animals suffer because of inadequate stunning than are killed altogether by shechita. The report of the EU Food Safety Authority stated that failure rates for penetrative captive bolt stunning may be as high as 6.6%—2 million cows. It also reported that failure for non-penetrative captive bolt stunning and electric stunning could be as high as 31%—10 million cows. In comparison, the total number of cattle killed by shechita in any one year is 20,000. It is clearly accepted, and has been by hon. Members this morning, that there are many cases of failed stunning and it is extremely important to register that. It is sometimes assumed that that is a superior method to shechita.
In addition to that report, a more recent one from Animal Aid, “The Humane Slaughter Myth”, recorded the results of filming in three random slaughterhouses in 2009. Among other things, it found pigs, sheep and calves inadequately stunned by electrocution and recounted horrific scenes of those animals trying to escape, howling and thrashing around. It reported injured animals who were then slaughtered and ewes watching their young killed. It is important to note that both practices are specifically prohibited under a range of intricate Jewish laws that prohibit cruelty to animals and make them not kosher and not able to be eaten by Jews observing kashrut.
Roger Williams
I thank the hon. Lady for her sensible and calm approach to this matter. One of our concerns when we took evidence was that not all animals killed by the shechita method were found to be of kosher standard or quality and had to go into the general meat trade. Can anything be done to ensure that only animals that will be suitable for kosher meat are killed by the shechita method?
Mrs Ellman
Some parts of animals are prohibited from being eaten by people who observe the laws of kashrut and they are often sold in other parts of the food chain. That is part of the system. I know that there are issues about labelling slaughtering methods. I do not think that labelling would be objected to in principle, but it should apply to all types of killing and all situations in which killing takes place.
Neil Parish
I am grateful for the calm way we are debating this matter. We found from the evidence presented to us that in some big slaughterhouses not all slaughtering is necessarily checked by the Jewish community and some animals go through the system and end up in the normal food chain without going through the shechita system. There is a way to tighten up on that. The issue involves not just parts of the animals but whole animals that go through the system and are not fully checked. We could do more about that.
Mrs Ellman
I accept that further steps could be taken, but my essential concern is about a preserving the rights of the Jewish community as part of British society to maintain its traditions and religious laws that are all designed to enhance animal welfare. I am greatly concerned about the often unstated assumption that stunning is more humane and that animals that are not killed according to Jewish laws do not suffer. The evidence simply does not substantiate that.
Shechita is humane. It is part of a body of Jewish laws designed to improve animal welfare and is vital to the Jewish community. The debate will continue and it is important that it does so calmly, recognising the rights of animals to the highest welfare standards and also recognising the rights of all communities within the United Kingdom.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
On 16 January, the other place debated religious slaughter, showing a high level of scientific, practical and religious expertise. For example, Lord Winston and Lord Sacks gave scientific and religious justifications of shechita slaughter that I would recommend to anyone who is interested. I appreciate the non-emotive tone used by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, let us be under no illusions about how emotive the issue is for the Orthodox Jewish British community. In the event of a ban on non-stunned meat—I appreciate that that has not been recommended by my hon. Friend—they would either have to import their meat or move to a place where they could eat it and maintain their civil liberties.
The report of July 2014 by the all-party group on beef and lamb, chaired by my hon. Friend, set out areas for future debate and asked as many questions as it answered. In particular, it accepted that concerns over shechita slaughter are not supported by scientific evidence and called for more research. I note the report’s statement that it is worth debating
“whether the right to Freedom of Religious Expression outweighs animal welfare considerations”.
However, that is not the right starting point from a Jewish point of view, which is that a single knife cut stuns, kills and exsanguinates in a single act. Accordingly, the Jewish view is that shechita is the most humane and animal welfare friendly method of slaughter and is not to be weighed against or bargained with freedom of religious expression.
A conceptual problem is that modern slaughter practice, including stunning, is based on mechanised, mass market, cheap food requirements. That is not the starting point for shechita, where the quality of and respect to be given to each animal is key.
Another issue relates to whether or to what extent the animal feels pain during slaughter. The report acknowledges that there is a “knowledge deficit” about whether a neck cut is painful or not. That issue was raised by Lord Winston in the other place, who said:
“I emphasise that what has been said about pain is another assumption. Of course animals may move after the brain is severed but the brain itself does not perceive pain if it is damaged and, in fact, none of the organs below the skin has pain fibres. You have some pain fibres in your trachea but they are very small. The evidence that animals suffer severe pain after one cut with an extremely sharp knife is extremely arguable. The truth is that, once you are unconscious, nobody knows what the perception of death or pain is.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. GC200.]
I should point out that many other academics see shechita as just as humane as other slaughter methods. Moreover, it is certainly considered to be more humane than what happens to the chickens that are hung and electrocuted, the pigs that are gassed, and the cows that can be mis-stunned before the second, later act of slaughter takes place. All that avoids the issues surrounding the trapping of animals or the shooting of game from a distance, which is why many Jews and Muslims ask why shechita and halal should be looked at in isolation.
That question also attaches to the issue of labelling. Jewish rules were, of course, the first to initiate labelling, and all meat consumed as kosher needs to be labelled as such. However, it is then asked why kosher and halal meat in general—say, put in dog food—should have to be labelled, when meat slaughtered or stunned by other means need not be. Moreover, are we not missing the broader point? Namely, would the consumer not be as interested in knowing how the animal lived as in knowing how it died—for instance, what drugs it was given or what density of population and conditions it lived in? Should those issues not also be included in the labelling debate? Personally, I think that they should, and that the all-party group report should be looked at in that wider context.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate and the hon. Members who took part in the production of this report. I follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) in welcoming not only the atmosphere of calm in this debate and the transparent way in which it has been conducted so far, but the overall tone of the report produced by the APPG. It feels better to have this type of debate, rather than the one we had earlier in the year, followed by extensive media reporting, which was deeply divisive and caused a great deal of upset and pain to religious communities, who felt that their religious freedoms were under attack in an atmosphere of misinformation and sensationalist media reporting, which we should all do our best to avoid.
I am a practising Muslim, so the issues relating to access to religious slaughter matter to me personally; they also matter to many thousands of my constituents who are also Muslim. I represent a constituency with a large Muslim population, but I also represent other communities who have spoken to me about issues relating to religious slaughter—in particular, the Sikh community in my constituency, who worry that they are inadvertently consuming meat that, according to their religious laws, they would not be allowed to consume. That is why I will focus most of my remarks on the key issue of labelling, which is very important in order to give religious communities—people of practising religious faith—the opportunity to access meat that is in accordance with religious belief, and for those who wish to reject that meat, either on grounds of views on the humaneness of the method of slaughter or because of other religious views. They should also be protected.
I just say that I absolutely fully support this country’s current legislative framework, which allows religious communities to have access to meat that has not been stunned prior to slaughter. I think it is an important protection for religious freedom in our legislative framework and it should be retained. If it was not, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, religious communities would be forced to import meat or consider their long-term future in this country, and that would be a big and important moment for religious minority communities in our country.
The report says a great deal about labelling, much of which I support. As a person of practising religious faith, it is important to me that when I am buying meat, I am able to know whether that meat is halal and whether it has been stunned prior to slaughter. I was a bit troubled by some evidence given to the APPG by the Halal Food Authority in particular, which was uneasy about labelling, because it felt that if people knew that the meat had been stunned prior to slaughter, it would lead to a rejection of halal meat that had been stunned. I think that is a misunderstanding both of what is happening in our communities today and of the essential rights of consumers to know what they are buying. We should not be trying to hoodwink communities into accepting practices that result from mass production and mechanised processes, when, if people knew about those, they would utterly reject and feel very strongly about them.
I agree with the point made by Shechita UK and the Association of Non-Stun Abattoirs about the extent of labelling. Let us say the starting position is the belief that consumers should know what has happened to meat—whether it has been slaughtered in accordance with religious principles and about the method of stunning. None of those is a particularly pleasant way to treat animals. Sometimes I think we feel that we can sanitise the whole process of eating meat. At the end of the day, an animal is being killed, and, for people of religious faith, the killing of an animal is a really big deal, which is why so many Muslims and Jews, in particular, are so wedded to the methods laid down in their holy books for the killing of an animal. A life is being taken and therefore, it can only be done in the precise way that God has ordained, according to God’s law, and that is why that matters so very much. When there is mass production and so much meat being produced in a mechanised way, it is difficult to stick to the principles laid down in the holy books, and some kind of further understanding of what happens in those processes is really important. However, we cannot take away from the fundamental act that is being done, and it is important that consumers understand that more. It is not just a nicely packaged pink bit of meat that we buy in the supermarket; something happened to it before, and the more information that we can give people, the more we can shine a light on practices in the industry, and actually, sometimes shining a light puts pressure on industry to look at better methods that would be more acceptable to the public.
Labelling is something that we should all support, but we should not just go for the basic level, and we should not just say that the burden on industry would be too great if we gave more information. That sounds to me almost as though we are trying to hide from the public what really happens in some abattoirs. We should be totally open and transparent, and labelling should not just extend to whether the animal is stunned or non-stunned; we should look at the method of stunning as well as the method of slaughter, and we should seek to educate the public as much as possible. That would matter a lot not only to people of religious faith, but to people who have no religious faith but want to know how an animal has been treated, and ultimately, how it died.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), not only on the report, but on the way he has conducted this debate, as others have as well, because it is an emotive subject and it is very important that we tackle it in a calm, collected way.
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I do not agree with everything that he said, but the truth of the matter is that my constituents and I—I only eat kosher meat, as he knows—believe passionately that the welfare of the animal is vital. To that end and after earlier debates, I thought, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), that it was necessary to visit an abattoir and see the process at first hand. We did that—I visited kosher and non-kosher abattoirs—and I am going to be very honest: as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, anyone who says that there is a pleasant way of killing an animal is kidding themselves. There is not a pleasant way of killing an animal.
We must also consider the wider aspects of the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said, what happened before the animal was killed is also important. Was the animal living in terrible circumstances? It could be killed in the most humane way possible, but if it lived its whole life in terrible circumstances, that is also not a pleasant thing to think about.
What is shechita? Shechita is the Jewish religious humane method of animal slaughter for food. It is the only method of preparing meat and poultry in accordance with Jewish tradition—meat and poultry that an observant Jew can eat. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—I call her my hon. Friend even though I should say “the hon. Member”—shechita is carried out by a trained person called a shochet, who has been trained for many years before taking up the profession.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the shochet holds two licences? One is issued by the Food Standards Agency and the other by the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim. That rabbinical commission is a statutory body established by Parliament under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995.
Mr Scott
My hon. Friend is perfectly right: that is the case.
The chalaf is the surgically sharp instrument that is used, and the incision made cuts off the blood supply to the brain straight away. Shechita conforms to the EU definition of stunning. Immediately, the brain is inactive and the animal feels no pain—to the best of our knowledge. With any form of killing at an abattoir, we do not know exactly what an animal might go through.
Let me move on to labelling. The Jewish community is not against food labelling; in fact, we invented it. The hechsher, which is on every piece of kosher meat to prove that it is kosher so that the community can eat it, has existed since time immemorial; it has always been there. However, it would be inappropriate if meat was labelled in a way that was purely of a religious nature. If it is to be labelled, every aspect has to be covered. We have heard about some of the methods of killing animals or stunning animals, such as gassing and electrocution, and we have heard a lot about mis-stuns. There are reports that the figure could be as high as 20 million. We do not know how many animals are mis-stunned. That is perfectly true, but we should know. That should be recorded as well, because if we are to start recording, if we are to start labelling, that has to be across the board.
I believe that one of the great things about our country is the freedom of people to practise their religions and live according to their holy books as they believe they should. I believe that it is vital that that be allowed to continue, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton rightly mentioned, all that would happen if it was not would be that meat was imported from areas that are perhaps far less stringent than we are in the United Kingdom.
They were not from my own constituency, but I received e-mails before this debate in which people said that they were concerned not about how the animal was killed, but about whether a religious prayer had been said over the animal. I do not think that that has any role to play in this whatever. We are talking about how the animal is treated—the welfare of the animal. I believe that whatever side of the debate we come from, we all want the same, which is for the animal to have the best possible life and the least pain possible when it is killed, and I believe that shechita does meet that.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to hear so many great speeches. In my constituency, I have two significant groups to which the issue of food labelling causes great concern: the Muslim community and the Jewish community. I speak mainly from the Jewish perspective, as I know more about shechita than halal meat production, but I also speak as someone who passionately believes in animal welfare and, having been a vegetarian for the last 35 years, I think that my actions demonstrate that more than my words.
As I said, I am more informed about the production of kosher meat through the shechita method. That is the only method of preparing meat and poultry in accordance with Jewish tradition. Both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) went through the technical aspects of shechita, but one point that I want to clarify is that under the shechita method, the blood supply to the animal’s brain ceases immediately. Consciousness is irreversibly lost and, with it, the ability of the animal to feel pain. I believe that it is quick, effective and safe, and it ensures that the animal is not subjected to any avoidable pain.
That is in contrast to conventional mechanised slaughter, which uses industrial methods that I do not believe members of the public would be very enthusiastic about if they witnessed how an animal was incapacitated before its death. In conventional mechanised slaughter, a high throughput of animals must be maintained for commercial reasons. That creates many animal welfare issues, such as workers using cattle prods or kicking or pushing animals to usher them quickly along the production line.
However, the main difference between shechita and conventional mechanised slaughter is in the way in which the animals are stunned. I believe, as do other hon. Members, that shechita conforms to the EU definition of stunning:
“any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death”
by causing immediate cerebral perfusion. Mechanical methods, on the other hand, may include captive bolt shooting, gassing, electrocution, drowning, trapping and clubbing. This is where I have a problem with the premise that mechanised slaughter is preferable to other methods, such as those termed as religious slaughter. Mechanised methods frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in great and prolonged distress.
Many people are unaware that mechanised methods were originally conceived by large-scale factory abattoirs to speed up the process and stop the animal thrashing around at the point of slaughter, so that the production line could move more quickly. Acceptance of the use of such methods has been adopted by those who express animal welfare concerns in order to allay their own conscience. The use of evidence on mechanised methods in support of the animal welfare benefits is inconclusive and—this is the crux of my concern—I consider the failure rates to be unacceptably high.
By contrast, the shechita process has to be slow and methodical. Any animal or bird that is even slightly harmed before slaughter is not considered suitable for kosher consumption. Special care is taken to ensure that animals are well treated and calm ahead of slaughter, not only because that is mandated but because any other approach would make kosher meat production near impossible.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, mentioned the European Food Safety Authority’s 2004 report on the “Welfare Aspects of Animal Stunning and Killing Methods”. That identified a failure rate of up to 2 million cows for penetrating captive bolt stunning in conventional mechanical slaughter and, with non-penetrating captive bolt stunning and electric stunning, it can rise as high as 10 million cows, so we are looking at 12 million to 14 million cows being mis-stunned each year.
In the Jewish community, the number of cows consumed through the shechita method is just 20,000, so I have to ask why there is this great concern about the 20,000 cows that pass through the shechita and kosher process when 12 million cows are possibly mis-stunned each year. No one seems to like to answer that question. Recently, the FSA was asked that very question.
Neil Parish
I think that my hon. Friend is mixing his figures. I think that he is taking the 20,000 cattle in the UK that are slaughtered under the shechita system and probably taking a European-wide figure for mis-stunning. I would not think the figure was anywhere near that for mis-stunning in this country, so that ought to be corrected. It is nowhere near 14 million; I hope to God it is not.
Dr Offord
That helpfully illustrates my next point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Statistics produced by the Food Standards Agency on the number of mis-stuns are a requirement under legislation and—recent parliamentary questions have asked about this—they show that an unrealistically low number of mis-stuns have been reported in the UK. For example, in 2011, just six cattle were officially reported as having been mis-stunned. My hon. Friend will accept that that is an unrealistic number, too. Following a series of follow-up questions to the Department, the previous Minister conceded that those statistics may not be complete and may represent only a fraction of the actual numbers. I look forward to the Food Standards Agency reviewing its reporting methods.
Many researchers believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said, that shechita is at least as humane as other methods, if not preferable in light of the animal welfare benefits, although others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), believe that conventional animal slaughter is preferable. However, there is agreement that making any assessment of the pain felt by an animal is incredibly difficult. As a result, the Government’s position has always been that the scientific evidence in this area is inconclusive. No study has ever replicated shechita in a laboratory environment, and therefore no accurate scientific assessment of shechita has ever been carried out. It seems incongruous to me to presuppose that consumers do not have a right to know that an animal has been slaughtered by mechanical methods, or mechanically stunned prior to slaughter by one of the legal methods that I have mentioned. All of those, including the mis-stunnings, as I have said, are supposed to be recorded in slaughterhouses but are not. Labelling a meat product as not stunned before slaughter suggests that no stun takes place at all, when shechita in fact incorporates an effective stun at slaughter.
Some Muslims accept stunning as being consistent with halal, provided that the stun only renders the animal unconscious but does not kill it. That means that the animal will be alive but unconscious at the point of throat cutting. It will die from loss of blood, not from the stun. It is crucial for Muslims that the stun does not kill the animal, so they want to be assured that the stun is recoverable—that if the stun was not followed by throat cutting, the animal would recover consciousness.
I believe that labelling meat as not stunned before slaughter is pejorative and discriminatory, because it effectively places religious slaughter methods in a second-class category. I call on the Government to end the constant criticism of religious practices by introducing comprehensive food labelling, or rather by producing religious food labelling. The EU strategy on animal welfare from 2012 to 2015 states that the Commission plans to study the issue of labelling meat that comes from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter. The study is likely to be published shortly. I urge the Government to seek the introduction of a fully comprehensive food labelling scheme, and not simply to use the half-truth about “meat from slaughter without stunning”.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for the report and for securing the debate. I read the report and was pleasantly surprised, because it was not what I was expecting. It is balanced, although I take issue with several points in it.
Before I took a view on religious slaughter, I thought I would go and see for myself. I am not sure how many hon. Members have visited a slaughterhouse, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) and I ventured out to Witney, of all places, so that we could see for ourselves. I have to say that from the cows’ point of view, there is no such thing as a good death. From what I saw as a layman—I am not an expert—of both types of slaughter, the work of the shochetim in the religious slaughter appeared to be more humane than a bolt through the head. Let us not dance around the niceties—we are talking about a bolt fired at pressure through the centre of a cow’s skull. As hon. Members have already said, all forms of slaughter are unpleasant. We must remember that one is not nice and fluffy while another is cruel.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In that sense, would it not be more honest for the organisations that campaign against religious slaughter to campaign as well for all of us to become vegans?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The campaign against religious slaughter is remarkably narrow. If someone is against slaughter, they should be against all slaughter, because neither method is humane from the point of view of the cow, lamb or chicken.
Before we saw the slaughter, I spent some time learning who does the work of the slaughter. The shochetim are highly trained and have to train for many years. From some reports of religious slaughter, one might think that a shochet was a knife-wielding maniac who had wandered in off the street to slit the throats of cows. Shochetim have to undertake years of training and sit exams to prove that they are of a high calibre. Not only are they highly trained, but they are not allowed to operate unless they are at peace and centred. If they have had a car accident or a row with their partner on their way in, or if they are out of sorts that day, they are simply not allowed to practise. A great deal of time and thought is put into ensuring not only that the animal is calm and uninjured, but that the person who uses the blade is equally calm and unperturbed. The process is calm on both sides—for the animal that is being slaughtered and the person who undertakes the slaughtering.
From what I saw, the person who operates a bolt gun undertakes far less training than the shochet who uses a blade. It is almost the case that a person could apply to a slaughterhouse, and within days and with minimal training they could be operating a bolt gun on a cow. I reiterate that the use of the bolt is not humane, and we need to bear that important factor in mind when we compare the two types of slaughter. As the report says, the evidence is inconclusive about the pain experienced by an animal in the stunning involved in religious slaughter compared with stunning by a bolt through the head.
It is important that we use the term “religious slaughter”. The word “rite” is used too glibly, and we are not talking about a rite. Religious slaughter is not like dancing around the maypole; it is not something that we did in the past and from which we can now move on. It is an integral part of being Jewish or Muslim. It is not an option. If someone wants to practise their faith as a Jew or a Muslim, they have to keep kosher or halal. It is not something that they can choose to do on a Monday but choose not to do on a Tuesday. Religious slaughter is not a rite; it is an integral part of the faith.
Perhaps we should simply label meat. I am not fundamentally opposed to labelling, but why does the labelling have to say “stunned” or “not stunned”? In my view, that is an emotional response, not a factual one. It is discriminatory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) has said, to pick out one or two factors. If we are going to label meat, it is important for the consumer to know whether a piece of meat was stunned or not stunned, gassed or electrified, drowned, trapped or clubbed—or indeed whether two, three or four attempts were required with a bolt through the brain before the animal was killed. If we are going to label, let us label honestly and not try to mislead the public.
I think that the report was a good one, and I fundamentally agree with the statement in the conclusion on page 16 that
“it is to the benefit and pride of the United Kingdom that religious freedoms allow communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious rites.”
I prefer to use the word “beliefs”. In my view, the Government and the House should leave the matter there.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. Along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the Minister, I was attending an event to celebrate the great British sausage, at which the maker of the best British sausage was awarded a prize. We were engaged in some of the issues that have been debated this morning.
I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for chairing the all-party group and for the way in which the inquiry was carried out. I felt some trepidation when we set out on the inquiry, because I was afraid that emotion might cloud reality. However, I think that the evidence was taken in such a way as to allow us to concentrate on knowledge and scientific evidence.
There has been a suggestion that how animals live is more important than how they die. I do not think that anybody would disagree with the belief that animals should be kept in the best conditions and should die in the best conditions. We have free-range eggs, for example, and they are often labelled as such so that consumers can see how the animals were kept and reared. I support the all-party group’s conclusion that meat should be labelled “stunned” or “not stunned”. The Minister has expressed a view on that, and I understand that there are some European problems with going down that route, but perhaps he can explain how we can move towards that situation.
As well as having different methods of stunning and slaughter, we know that slaughterhouses are not always run in the best way. A lot can be done for animal welfare by improving slaughterhouses so that whichever method they use is used in the best possible way. During the inquiry one of the things that amazed me was the amount of scientific work on this subject. I thought the debate was based on anecdote or impression rather than evidence, but there has been a lot of work, which was taken into consideration when we came to our conclusions.
Evidence was given about how the anatomy of cattle differs from the anatomy of sheep. The shechita, or the cut, in cattle is less likely to reduce blood flow to the brain than in a sheep, which would lose consciousness very quickly. There is work to be done on that, too, and everyone acting in good faith will be able to reach a conclusion on how things can be improved. Indeed, one of the report’s main conclusions is that this is a subject that needs to be understood, and one of the benefits of the report is that the public will now better understand some of the issues and that, across the industry, there is a commitment to animal welfare throughout an animal’s life and at the point of death.
I once again thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for chairing the all-party group. He has done a great service both to the religious communities in this country and to the general public, who want to know how and in what conditions their food has been produced, including at the point of slaughter.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for conducting themselves with real intelligence, insight, clarity on detail and compassion for the many interested parties in a fascinating but sensitive debate. I also thank the all-party group on beef and lamb and the hon. Gentleman, its chairman, for producing a genuinely thoughtful report on meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. Every member of that group—some of them are here today—is a thoughtful and insightful individual. I declare my interest as a member of that all-party group.
I congratulate the APPG on bringing light to this debate in place of heat. Some people have tried to use the subject of halal and kosher meat as a proxy for a generalised attack on Muslim and Jewish communities. The report rejects that dark populism and rightly focuses instead on animal welfare and informed consumer choice. The report also attempts to take an evidence-based approach, which will not be welcomed by some who have firm positions either in opposition to or in support of the methodologies underpinning the production of halal and kosher meat. It is worth saying that the two methodologies differ in their detail.
The report is the right way to advance our understanding and to encourage sound policy making. Although I welcome the report, I do not think it is the end of the matter. This is a notoriously difficult subject not simply because of the religious and cultural sensitivities but because of some of the technical detail and gaps in scientific certainty. The report, however, is a worthy attempt to understand the matter, and it makes some useful recommendations. The religious and cultural sensitivities deserve our full consideration, and they must of course be set against any legitimate, if contested, concerns about animal welfare and the desire for informed consumer choice expressed through labelling. The report addresses all those matters.
The facts are important in this debate, as sometimes the tabloid hyperbole can overtake the reality. Although shechita slaughter prohibits any form of stunning, more than 80% of halal animals are pre-stunned. The Food Standards Agency estimated in 2012 that 3% of cattle, 10% of goats and sheep and 4% of poultry were not pre-stunned as part of halal slaughter—let us get the facts on the record. Religious slaughter has strict oversight by official veterinarians from the Meat Hygiene Service, and there are strict regulations governing meat hygiene and animal welfare and statutory regulations in each food business operator. The official veterinarians can give written or verbal advice on improvements, issue warnings and recommend prosecutions where necessary.
Of course, several organisations have now come to the conclusion that slaughter without pre-stunning compromises animal welfare. Those organisations include the British Veterinary Association—of which I am delighted to be an honorary member—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Humane Slaughter Association and others. They have presented strong evidence to support their case for a ban on such slaughter. But equally, as we have heard, organisations such as Shechita UK contest that evidence and have presented powerful counter-arguments and evidence. Of course, shechita meat could not be produced if there were a requirement for pre-stunning before all slaughter, and there have been some well made points on that today.
The organisations that advocate a complete ban on slaughter without stunning also advocate an alternative way forward if there can be no ban. They propose working with religious communities to enhance the enforcement of existing welfare-at-slaughter legislation where non-stun slaughter takes place; to introduce immediate post-cut stunning; to ensure time and facilities for the official veterinarian to be able adequately to monitor welfare where non-stun slaughter takes place; and to educate consumers.
Neil Parish
The shadow Minister is absolutely right. One of the problems with shechita is that the Jewish authorities just will not accept any post-stunning. I can understand the need for an animal to be conscious at the time of cut, but post-stunning would be very useful for large animals.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we need to work on both the religious and cultural differences and methodologies to find a way forward that, as he rightly says, does not stamp on the liberties that come with the absolutely right and long history of not only tolerance but acceptance of those differences within UK society.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman say what a future Labour Government, if one should ever happen, will do? I hope that, like us, a future Labour Government would continue to allow religious slaughter, but there is one area that worries me. What happens to the beef, in particular, that is rejected? Does it not just go back into the food chain? Everybody else is therefore buying non-stunned meat without necessarily knowing.
Huw Irranca-Davies
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will fully lay out our position. I appreciate that he came late, but that was covered earlier in the debate. I will cover it in my speech.
The proposals on an alternative way forward include educating consumers about animal welfare at slaughter—hon. Members have already addressed that point—and giving people confidence when they buy meat or meat products by providing reliable explanatory information about food labels or logos of assurance schemes that require stunning before slaughter so that people can make informed choices. The final proposal is the introduction of a simple logo for packaging to indicate meat obtained from non-stunned animals or the promotion of labelling from existing farm assurance schemes that require stunning before slaughter, such as the red tractor scheme. Those are reasonable and sensible proposals that focus not on the religious element of slaughter but on animal welfare and informed consumer choice. Do such suggestions meet with the Minister’s approval? How will he act upon them?
An issue raised by some organisations that has attracted much attention is increasing informed consumer choice through clear labelling. The Labour party, of course, supports informed consumer choice and has been a champion of clearer food labelling for a range of issues, such as nutritional information. However, in the context of meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, the question becomes what the label should say. Should meat be labelled halal or kosher? That was roundly and rightly rejected by parliamentarians of all parties when a private Member’s Bill to that end was presented to Parliament last May. Should all different types of slaughter be labelled for the consumer? In that case, make room on the label for “slaughter by electrical current”, or by carbon dioxide, inert gas, captive bolt pistol, gunshot or free bullet and so on. Some advocate doing so, as we have heard in this debate, and it would certainly satisfy the need for transparency, although it could reasonably be argued that it is not currently being demanded by consumers.
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman sets out clearly some alternative methods of stunning, but one hon. Member who spoke in this debate—I am sure it was by mistake—included clubbing as a method of pre-stunning. We should put it on record that clubbing can in no way be seen as a legal method of stunning in this country.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record appropriately. I am not aware that clubbing is a legitimate method sanctioned within UK slaughterhouses, so I am not sure where it came from. The methods that I listed are legitimate, sanctioned and overseen by veterinarians, the Food Standards Agency and others.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that on record.
To return to the issue of labelling, how it could be done and the difficulties involved, should labelling focus on the issue of stunning or the absence thereof? That seems to be the crux of the consumer argument as well as the animal welfare argument. If that or any alternative labelling proposals are to be taken forward, Labour believes that any implementation of proposals affecting meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites must involve full engagement with the faith groups affected, as well as with other interested parties. But—this is a significant “but”—surely that is best done at European level. I ask the Minister for an update on progress in European discussions on the issue. I will be raising it in my discussions with European colleagues this evening and tomorrow in Brussels, and it would be helpful to know what progress, if any, has been made.
The Minister will want to respond in detail to the points raised and to the recommendations in the report. I draw his attention to a couple of specific points. Recommendation 5 relates to concerns about the accuracy of recording of mis-stunning and mis-slaughtering in slaughter practices unrelated to religious slaughter. A written answer to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton on 24 March 2014 revealed that under the FSA recording procedures, in the whole nation only nine cases of cattle mis-stunning were recorded for 2013-14, as well as one duck, three pigs, three sheep and one turkey. The Minister told the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on 1 April this year that a study into the accuracy of the data was unnecessary, but when pursued by me and others in written questions, he responded to me on 26 September:
“The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is due to complete a review into its monitoring and reporting of breaches of welfare legislation by the end of October. Previously”—
this may explain things—
“only major and critical breaches were recorded, along with the actions taken to correct these. The FSA review is now also looking to strengthen recording of minor breaches.”
I look forward to the results of that review, as many people look at the figures with disbelief.
I say to the Minister that if the principle is animal welfare, that principle must extend across all forms of slaughter, not simply slaughter done in accordance with religious rites. We look forward to hearing the results of the FSA review and what actions might follow.
Finally, what work has the Minister carried out to assess consumer awareness of the issues raised in this debate, such as meat slaughtered in accordance with religious rites or stunned and non-stunned meat production? It cannot be left to the tabloids or rabble-rousers to set the agenda. We must have, as we have had today, a well informed and calm public and policy debate that proposes appropriate solutions that apply the highest animal welfare standards, provide clear and appropriate information for consumers and recognise and respect the cultural and religious practices of our diverse communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this important debate. As many Members have said, this issue is complex and sensitive. I had the pleasure of giving evidence to his all-party parliamentary group, and I thought that the report was engaging and got to grips with the details. As many hon. Members have said, it addressed the issue calmly and dispassionately, focusing on the evidence. I welcome his approach. Over the last six months or so, I have met representatives from all sides of the debate, including from Shechita UK, halal meat processors and Compassion in World Farming, to ensure that I have the fullest perspective of everyone’s views on the issue.
I will start by setting out a little of the historical and international context to the debate. Like many debates, it has been running for a long time. Today, European and domestic regulations apply to the welfare of animals that are to be slaughtered, requiring that all animals be stunned before slaughter. However, as every hon. Member here knows, there is a derogation to allow slaughter without stunning in accordance with religious rites for the production of halal or kosher meat only. The aim of the regulations is to ensure that animals are spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering at the time of killing.
However, our current national requirements on religious slaughter have a long history. Government first set down powers to prevent cruelty in slaughterhouses in the Public Health Act, which was as long ago as 1875. Byelaws made under that legislation required that animals be “effectually stunned”. After that, in 1904, a Committee was set up to ascertain the most humane practicable methods of slaughtering animals. The Committee’s report recommended that all animals to be slaughtered, without exception, should be stunned.
Following that report, the Local Government Board issued a circular proposing that the Committee’s recommendations should be implemented, but that stunning should not be obligatory where slaughter was carried out by a Jew licensed by the Chief Rabbi, provided that no unnecessary suffering was inflicted. Interestingly, a similar requirement for shechita slaughter—that it is carried out by a Jewish slaughterman licensed by the Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim—still exists in our current national legislation.
The first national legislative requirement in England and Wales for stunning before slaughter was in the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which also retained an exception from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Over the years, the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide protection to animals slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.
Our existing national rules on religious slaughter provide greater protection than those contained in the European regulation. For example, there are requirements for how cattle can be restrained. In particular, we prohibit inversion during slaughter, and require bovines to be restrained only in approved restraining pens. The requirements for bovine restraining pens are set down in national legislation. Other national rules concern so-called standstill times for cattle, sheep and goats; following the neck cut, the animal cannot be moved until at least 30 seconds have passed and the animal is unconscious, in the case of bovines, or at least 20 seconds have passed and the animal is unconscious, in the case of sheep and goats. The standstill times are aimed at providing protection from avoidable pain, suffering and distress caused, for example, by unnecessary movement while the animal is still conscious after its neck has been cut.
I turn now to what other countries are doing, to make some international comparisons. European legislation allows for national rules on religious slaughter, so there are differing rules across Europe. For example, in Germany abattoirs have to prove the “religious needs” and define the number of animals to be slaughtered so as to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned before they are granted a licence. In the Netherlands, all animals must be stunned if they have not lost consciousness within 40 seconds of the cut being made. In France, there must be a post-cut stun if cattle are still conscious after 90 seconds. Other countries, such as Finland, Denmark, Austria, Estonia and Slovakia, go further by requiring immediate post-cut stunning. Further afield, under Australian law stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for religious slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but post-cut stunning is still required for these animals.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who was here earlier, mentioned the potential impact on exports and the concerns that some people have about what might happen to exports if we place additional restrictions on religious slaughter. I completely understand that argument. However, last year I met a farmer from Australia, who said that all Australian sheep are effectively slaughtered in accordance with halal requirements, because they are exported to some very important Muslim markets in Asia, but those sheep are also stunned post-cut.
The reason I highlight both the historical and the international context of this issue is that there has been a long-running debate about it, which legislators have wrestled with for well over a hundred years. I am not sure that we will resolve all the issues here today in this debate but we have had a very calm and insightful debate, which has certainly helped.
I will pick up on the points that some hon. Members have made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, one of the issues with halal is that there is no single definition of what constitutes “halal”. Often in the case of halal meat, the relevant Muslim authorities are content that the animal is stunned. Where that stunning is carried out during the course of religious slaughter, the stun must be effective under the legislation and the animals must also be stunned using a lawful stunning method. As was pointed out by a number of hon. Members, the majority of halal meat is stunned; around 88% of poultry in the UK is stunned.
Also, the EU welfare at slaughter regulation allows for “simple stunning”, which is sometimes referred to as “recoverable stunning”. Simple stunning does not kill the animal but renders it unconscious and insensible to pain and, if it is used, it must be followed as quickly as possible by a procedure that causes death, such as bleeding.
I will pick up on some of the issues that other hon. Members have raised. First, however, I will underline the Government’s position today, which builds on the long-standing position we have adopted in this country. Our position is that we would prefer that all animals are stunned before slaughter, but we recognise and respect the needs of religious communities, so we have always maintained this limited exemption, which is to be used only for meat produced for Jewish and Muslim communities. Last year, the Prime Minister made it very clear in a speech that the Government have no intention of abolishing religious slaughter in this country. However, it is equally important to note that none of the derogations that we have in place, which are set out through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, exempt anyone from the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which requires all abattoirs to avoid causing an animal avoidable pain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and a number of other hon. Members questioned the evidence that non-stunned slaughter causes more pain and suffering to an animal. I understand the arguments that he made; I have met representatives of Shechita UK and heard those arguments from them. However, that is not a view that is widely shared in the scientific or veterinary community.
Put bluntly, the situation is clear from most of the evidence. There are a number of reports. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee issued a report in 2003, which concluded that there was significant pain and distress where there was not stunning before slaughter. Likewise, in 2004 the European Food Safety Authority issued a similar opinion, maintaining that there was more pain and suffering if there was no stun. There was also the EU Dialrel report and project, which was conducted in 2009 and looked at the neurological behaviour of animals once they are slaughtered. That report, too, reached a similar conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, and more recently there has been research in New Zealand, which reached the same conclusion. So there is a large body of research that concludes that it is better for the welfare of the animal for it to be stunned, and it is for that reason that the Government would prefer it if all animals were stunned.
It is important to make that point, because although the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of banning religious slaughter, we must understand the basis on which that is done. It is not that we believe that there is no difference between the two types of slaughter, nor that we believe shechita is a more welfare-friendly method of slaughter, but because we respect the rights of religious communities. That has been the long-standing position of every UK Government, going back some 100 years.
A number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raised the issue of labelling. The European Commission is conducting a study on labelling at the moment; we expect it to conclude in December. Initially, it was planned that the study would be published this summer, but as usual—because this is a very contentious issue—it has taken the Commission rather longer than it thought. Nevertheless, we hope that the study will come by the end of the year, or perhaps the beginning of next year.
A number of hon. Members made the point that it would be wrong just to label meat as “stunned” or “unstunned”, and that a fairer way would be to list all the different methods of slaughter. The only thing I would say in response is that, from the EU perspective, “stunned” has a clear legal definition in the legislation, and it is simply that an animal is rendered insensible to pain almost immediately. As I say, that is a clear definition and the scientific evidence does not support the argument that a cut without prior stunning achieves that. In addition, it would be complicated to list all the different methods of slaughter and, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, I am not sure that there would be a huge consumer appetite for us to try to differentiate between all the different methods of slaughter.
I know that previously people have said that perhaps we should label meat as being “halal” or “kosher”, so that people know what they are buying. However, there are also difficulties with that, in that there is no single definition of “halal”, as many hon. Members have said, and a further complication is that not all meat slaughtered by kosher methods is deemed “kosher”; for instance, the hind quarters of an animal are not deemed “kosher”, even though the animal is slaughtered by kosher methods. As I say, there are complications in the area of labelling, but we await the report from the European Commission and look forward to following it up.
I will also cover mis-stunning, which many hon. Members have mentioned. I can confirm that the Food Standards Agency has reviewed the way that it approaches mis-stunning. Previously, it only reported critical breaches that were observed by the official veterinarians in the slaughterhouse. We always accepted that that would not pick up every single mis-stun. Following representations that have been made, which is proof that this Parliament works when people ask questions of Ministers, I can confirm that we looked at this issue again and in future the FSA intends basically to monitor and record all breaches, whether or not they were critical.
The important thing to understand is that just because there is a mis-stun, that does not necessarily mean that the welfare outcome for the animal was dire. On occasions, and this usually happens with bovine animals, what a mis-stun means is that the first shot taken by the captive bolt did not quite achieve the intended task, and within seconds—almost literally—a second bolt is fired, which finishes the job. So it is wrong to equate mis-stunning with dire outcomes from an animal welfare point of view. Nevertheless, we are concerned about mis-stunning and will therefore monitor it.
I will finish by referring briefly to a few other points. CCTV in slaughterhouses is an issue; the FAWC is looking at it. The last time we had a consultation on it, we ruled out its use, on the basis that we did not think it would necessarily identify where there were problems, but we keep the issue under review.
Also, when it comes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made about consistency of approach, I have asked the FSA and our vets in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the approach they take to these issues, to ensure that there is consistency.
Finally, I will finish on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) made, namely that there is a difference between animal species. We know that sheep and chickens lose consciousness relatively quickly but sadly the same is not true for bovines, which can take up to 1 minute 20 seconds to lose consciousness.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all Members who took part in that important debate. If they are not staying for the debate on broadband in Cheltenham, will they be kind enough to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? They no doubt have plenty to chew over as they leave. We now move on to the important subject of broadband in Cheltenham, in the name of Mr Martin Horwood.
Broadband (Cheltenham)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. You will have to forgive me taking a moment to catch my breath. After a three-hour journey, I had to run across New Palace Yard to get to the Chamber on time—but I am here.
The origins of the problems in Cheltenham date back a long time. We have an unusual telephone exchange lay-out, with a single exchange to serve a town of 120,000 people. The further one gets from the central exchange by copper wire, therefore, the worse the telephone service is. In the 1960s, as the exchange developed, that lay-out did not make a massive difference; voice call quality was simply slightly worse in the outlying areas of town. Today, it makes a huge difference, because internet broadband speeds drop off the further one is from the exchange, so even if some parts of town have a decent basic broadband service of about 2 megabits per second, in outlying areas such as Up Hatherley and Springbank speeds can be as low as 0.5 megabits per second.
I have raised this issue over many years, including with the Minister’s predecessors in the previous Government, but we were told that the digital revolution was coming and that we need have no fear, because given the commercial roll-out and the gap-filling exercise that the Government rightly prioritised—the Broadband Delivery UK programme to subsidise hard-to-reach areas—all would be well. Indeed, the Government have put more than £100 million for England into BDUK to reach those areas that are not commercially viable. BT told us that it would be able to supply most parts of Cheltenham with a commercial service, and that other operators would be playing their part.
It looked as though the Government’s targets, which are ambitious, would be met as far as Cheltenham was concerned. The targets are to achieve 90% availability of superfast broadband, with speeds as high as 25, 30 or more megabits per second, and for everyone to have the basic 2 megabits-per-second broadband service, whether they had upgraded to superfast fibre-optic or not. It seems to me, however, that the real risk is that neither of the targets will be met in Cheltenham, and if they are not met in an urban area such as Cheltenham, they are unlikely to be met nationwide.
Today that matters, because we are talking about something used not only for entertainment or casual purposes, but by people working from home who need access to documents. One computer programmer told me it took three days to download a programme on the broadband speeds available to him. Children have to access their homework; my kids access their school intranets to file their homework and to access homework materials. People also do their banking, respond to Government consultations and apply to university via the internet. A basic internet service is no longer a luxury, but something that people expect. People certainly expect that when they buy new houses, but we have people moving into an almost brand-new estate only to discover that they do not even have 2 megabits per second available on their broadband service, which is clearly unacceptable. We need to ask why that is happening.
The commercial roll-out has proceeded and BT has done a pretty good job. It is reaching about 88% of the homes in Cheltenham, but that leaves a gap of at least one in 10 homes. Other commercial operators, including Virgin, are active in the town and are filling some of that gap, but far from all of it. We hoped that the Government-subsidised programme would then step in and fill the remaining holes, but that does not seem to be happening.
The Government-sponsored programme in Gloucestershire is called Fastershire, and it tells me that for various technical reasons it simply cannot fill the gaps. Its 2011 open market review did not identify the specific gaps; it was given information by the commercial suppliers on a postcode basis, but the supply is actually provided on a cabinet, street or even premises basis, so Fastershire had an inaccurate picture of where broadband would be provided commercially. Fastershire also states that BT and some of the other commercial operators have changed the boundaries and the areas in which they are operating. Given how Fastershire is set up, it must apply for state aid exemption to subsidise particular postcode areas, and it cannot undo that approval to fill in gaps that emerge over time.
I hope that the Minister’s broadband service is good on his mobile phone, which he is checking at the moment. I also hope that what I am saying is sinking in, in terms of the seriousness of what is happening in Cheltenham.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
My hon. Friend is inviting me to intervene. I am happy to do so, and to start responding to him now. Obviously, I am aware of all the points that he is making, and I am pleased that he managed to make it to his own debate.
Martin Horwood
Thank you.
The problem that people face is that they are falling between the gaps. Fastershire is providing a roll-out programme that is overwhelmingly geared to rural areas, but even after the open market review had shown that there were gaps in urban Cheltenham, it has not identified an immediate way in which to deliver a decent broadband service or access to superfast broadband in the areas that have been left out. We are finding increasing numbers of such areas, in Benhall, The Reddings, Up Hatherley, Springbank and Battledown. Only last week, I discovered a new area in the St Paul’s part of town, where a brand-new estate is without decent broadband services.
New estates, or those filling in between older areas, seem to be one of the key problems, and where the service has not been provided. That might be an historical pattern of some sort—perhaps no dedicated BT cabinet, or a cabinet used to serve a smaller number of premises—but whatever the reason, people find it extraordinary that they are moving into brand-new homes in which the developers have not bothered to ensure broadband services. People then find that they fall between the gaps, with BT or other commercial operators saying that such a service is not commercially viable and Fastershire saying, “Sorry, guv, it’s nothing to do with us, you’re outside our approved area.” Fastershire is conducting a new open market review, but if some of those problems of communication between it and the commercial operators persist—if we repeat the problem of information being provided by postcode, when services are provided by cabinet, street or individual premises— we might find yet again that gaps emerge and households are left out.
I have a few things to ask the Minister to have a look at. First, on planning and building regulations, if we are so ambitious as a Government to deliver superfast broadband across the country, it seems wrong that we are allowing new estates to be built without the provision of proper broadband services. That is something that could be tackled. I know that councils are wary these days—with due reason, in some cases—of imposing restrictions on developers and conditions on planning consents that might be seen to be unreasonable or threaten the commercial viability of a housing development. I would like the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether we can reassure councils that it will be regarded as reasonable, and that they will not be challenged, if they insist that those developing new developments have to put in decent broadband services and, if necessary, pay BT to connect the local cabinet to the option of superfast broadband.
The second thing is for the Minister to go, at national level, to BDUK and the various commercial providers —mainly BT, but also Virgin, EE, TalkTalk, Sky and others—to try to resolve these issues about communication, and about the basis on which the maps are drawn that decide what is commercially viable. It would be reasonable to knock some heads together and say, “Listen, it is completely unacceptable that you all have the information, but each side is blaming the other when it comes to how the information is provided.” Fastershire in Gloucestershire told me that it was provided with information by BT and the others only on a postcode basis, so that was the only basis on which it could draw its maps. BT insists that Fastershire has all the information it needs to fill the gaps. They cannot both be right. The Minister needs to sit down with BDUK and the commercial providers to knock heads together and find out why Cheltenham and, presumably, other urban areas right across the country have so many gaps in the roll-out.
We need to offer a bit of challenge to some of the commercial operators. At least behind closed doors, we need to remove the cloak of commercial confidentiality and ask exactly on what basis they are judging whether an area is commercially viable. On some occasions, the operators have suggested to people that if they could raise the money themselves—that would effectively add a subsidy through the community—they could have the option of connecting to superfast broadband. If a community is willing to raise that money to subsidise superfast broadband, presumably they would be willing to pay the premiums required to upgrade to it, which implies that it would be commercially viable to go into that street or estate. I am still not clear whether the poor service that some areas get is part of the consideration, or whether BT is doing a tick-box exercise using the area’s demographics, house prices, topography and so on. The decisions seem to be fine judgments in some cases.
There are a few bits of good news. For example, BT and Fastershire have been prepared to talk about these issues and, I think in both cases, are generally committed to removing the embarrassing gaps in the programme. There are some good news stories where community effort has resolved the issue. Cabinets 124 and 214 in Cheltenham are, in different ways, good news stories. In one case, the community persuaded the developers of a new estate to underwrite the cost of putting superfast broadband into their local cabinet, so that cabinet should be okay. In another case, the community persuaded BT to shift the cabinet, apparently to make the viability more commercially promising. BT is therefore including that in its roll-out plans.
We still have a number of other cabinet areas that have been left out. I am notified weekly of new streets where people are getting poor service. Going back to the original problems with the centralised exchange, poor service is particularly hard to take for those who live in the areas that were most distant from the old exchange. In some parts of Cheltenham, people in one street have a service of 0.5 megabits a second, which is an unconscionably slow service, while only yards away people can get 25 to 30 megabits a second and have a service that is 60 times better. That is pretty hard for people to understand and accept.
I do not expect the Minister to have an instant solution. I realise that there are complexities around state aid rules and the planning of these programmes over many years, but I do not think we are likely to meet our ambition as a Government to supply at least 90% of the population with access to superfast broadband by next year, and to supply everyone with a service of at least 2 megabits a second or better, if areas such as Cheltenham are not meeting the targets. I would like him at least to recognise the problem, and to promise to get the commercial providers, the roll-out programme for BDUK and programmes such as Fastershire in Gloucestershire together to try to establish what information can be shared on a rolling basis, so that we can ensure that these gaps do not continue to emerge in the delivery of broadband.
The Government have rightly prioritised the issue. The calculation is that superfast broadband could be worth £400 million to the Gloucestershire economy alone. To the country as a whole, it is economically vital. It is part of our future and our competitiveness as a 21st-century nation. We have to do better for some of my constituents.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he addressed the House this morning, and in particular on starting the debate by demonstrating what the human form of superfast broadband might look like. For one dreadful moment, some of us thought that he might be the replacement for the right hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) in the Home Office, but I am delighted that he has managed to be here. His constituents should know that he made his whole speech without referring to any notes. Having listened to a lot of his speeches, may I say that he speaks rather better without notes than he does with brief supplied to him?
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning, Mr Hollobone, with my prepared speech typed out for me by my officials, which I intend to refer to constantly through the next 15 minutes. I join you in congratulating my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on his superfast appearance at this morning’s debate. At 10.59 am, I wondered whether he was going to make it, but he arrived right on cue, although his initial remarks were characterised by a certain breathlessness. For those of us who aspire for our appearances in the House to be broadcast on “Today in Parliament”, I have some concerns that the BBC will perhaps decide not to broadcast the beginnings of the debate in case it gets complaints from its listeners about heavy breathing. When at one point he stopped dead in the middle of his speech, I was worried enough about him that I was forced to intervene to ensure that he had recovered appropriately.
My hon. Friend has covered a number of important points to do with broadband in his constituency and some national issues. He fairly made the point throughout that this is a flagship programme for the Government. On a national level, we are investing something like £1.7 billion in superfast broadband roll-out. That is money direct from Government and from local authorities. It includes some European money—forgive me for mentioning that, Mr Hollobone—and some private sector money from BT. My hon. Friend highlighted examples in Cheltenham, and many of the specific issues that he raised are ones that I have had to grapple with over the past four and a half years.
As my hon. Friend mentioned the national picture on several occasions during his remarks, I begin by reminding the House of the successes we are seeing with the national broadband roll-out. Superfast broadband coverage in the UK is very high, at 78%. We outperform the other four big European economies. On the world stage, we perform well in access to superfast speeds and in price, which is important when looking at access to broadband. We have a competitive telecoms market in the UK and accessible prices. I am often told that in such-and-such a country, people can access speeds of, for example, 100 megabits per second, but no one ever completes the sentence by saying that it costs the equivalent of £80, £90 or £100 a month, or perhaps even more. Price is important. We have passed the 1 million mark in premises covered since all the contracts were signed, and we are now covering something like 40,000 additional premises every week.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for commercial providers to do more in urban areas. I am pleased that, partly as a result of discussions with the Government, BT has set aside an additional £50 million for broadband in cities and that Virgin Media, under its new leadership, is also looking to extend its footprint, which it has not done before. We therefore expect some half a million additional premises in cities and towns to benefit from the commercial deployments of BT and Virgin Media. Overall, thanks to our superfast broadband programme, some 4 million additional premises will get coverage.
Turning to the local issues raised by my hon. Friend, the Fastershire project, covering Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, will see central Government investment of some £29 million and total investment of over £55 million. I appreciate that this does not relate specifically to his constituency, but the programme has already reached more than 32,000 homes and businesses and will reach almost 146,000 over the next three years, meaning that Herefordshire and Gloucestershire will see 93% of their premises enjoying the benefits of superfast broadband. My hon. Friend’s constituency of Cheltenham is projected to see coverage of some 96%, with 48,000 out of 50,000 premises covered by the commercial deployment. Of the 2,000 that are not covered, some 625 should be covered by phase 2 of our broadband project.
Martin Horwood
I would be interested to know where that figure of 96% comes from, because I am not familiar with it. BT tells me that it is delivering commercial broadband to 88% of the town, but neither it nor Fastershire can tell me how much of the remainder is being supplied by companies such as Virgin Media. As it stands, at least one in 10 households in Cheltenham will not be included and will not have the advantage of that commercial roll-out. The Minister does not have to provide the information now, but if he could write to me to explain where that 96% came from, I would be grateful.
Mr Vaizey
I will certainly set out the details for my hon. Friend. BT is responsible for setting out only what its own coverage will achieve in Cheltenham, but we are able to access an overview of total coverage, including that provided by Virgin Media, for example. Thanks to local loop unbundling, Cheltenham residents, like residents all over the country, are able to take advantage of other providers, such as Sky and TalkTalk, using the network.
My hon. Friend mentioned state aid. It is a difficult issue that we have resolved as far as rural broadband is concerned, but it is difficult in towns and cities, where state aid is deemed to distort free markets because of high levels of commercial investment. It may be that the commercial investment case is not as clear as we believe, but we should make every effort to support commercial investment before investing state funds. The criterion for public investment is that the area must not have current or planned supply of services within three years, and we must test that through market reviews such as the open market review to which my hon. Friend referred. That takes time, planning and resourcing. In places such as Cheltenham and similar towns, the case for public investment is not straightforward, and we must tread carefully.
The Fastershire project ran a market review in 2011, and areas that were reported to be without provision or plans for it were included within the scope for investment under phase 1 of the programme. The belief at the time would have been that many areas outside the scope of the local programme would be covered by commercial plans. However, sometime plans change for unforeseen reasons, and there will another opportunity under the current open market review of phase 2 of the programme to consider including those areas in local plans.
Martin Horwood
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. One problem with the initial open market review process is the basis on which information was exchanged about which areas were commercial and which were not. The open market review was conducted on a postcode basis, whereas actual delivery has been cabinet by cabinet, street by street or premises by premises, so gaps have emerged within postcodes. For example, Fastershire might say that it cannot act as a postcode was deemed commercially viable, but people within the postcode might be told by BT that it is not commercially viable. Will the Minister knock heads together to get such issues resolved?
Mr Vaizey
There are many local issues to consider. The viability of enabling some cabinets and premises is not straightforward. We do go down to six and seven-digit postcodes, but I am happy to consider specific examples that my hon. Friend wants to bring before me. Other factors that come into play include local infrastructure and buildings, such as the locations of cabinets, planning permissions, railway lines and street furniture, all of which can cause problems. Where suppliers cannot connect cabinets due to such obstacles, we work closely with them to provide solutions. The open market review in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire should resolve some such issues, but I will be delighted to look at any specific examples that my hon. Friend would like us to consider.
While talking about the Fastershire project, I must say that the area has a number of providers offering a different range of technologies and solutions. Companies such as Loop Scorpio, Airband and Cotswold Wireless all provide services in different parts of the two counties. We have also announced eight pilot projects with alternative providers to look at getting to the most hard-to-reach areas.
The second issue that my hon. Friend raised was provision to new builds, which is a frustration that I share. We considered regulation in 2010, but it was decided at the time that it would be inappropriate. Over the past few months, it emerged that a number of large developments were being constructed without proper broadband provision. It is possible for local councils to make it clear when giving planning permission that they expect developers to provide superfast broadband, but by engaging with BT, Virgin Media and several other providers, such as Hyperoptic, it became clear that we needed a much better system of developers working together with such organisations.
Following two meetings with me as Minister and a series of meetings with BDUK, we instituted a forum through which developers can contact telecoms providers with their plans for new builds, so that superfast broadband can be provided at the appropriate time for ducts to be laid and so on before proper building commences. I am also pleased that Openreach is in the process of hiring an additional 1,500 engineers in order to meet such demand. We will work with house builders and telecoms providers to continue to develop an action plan to ensure that new developments have access to superfast broadband. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it is completely unacceptable in this day and age for somebody to move into a new home to find that superfast broadband is not ready to be connected.
Forgive me for reading a significant proportion of my speech, Mr Hollobone, I will now go into improvisation mode and will try to avoid hesitation, repetition or, indeed, deviation in summing up. The Fastershire project has been a great success so far, with 32,000 premises covered out of almost 150,000 planned, and some £15 million invested. I am familiar with the problems relating to urban development highlighted by my hon. Friend in his excellent speech without notes, and it is difficult to get appropriate state aid in order for us to subsidise broadband roll-out in urban areas. People find it hard to believe, but there are urban areas that some telecoms companies deem uneconomical to supply. I will certainly consider any specific examples that my hon. Friend wants to provide and will, as he instructed, knock heads together—metaphorically—to see whether we can make some progress.
Badger Culls (Assessment)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Caton. We should not, however, be having this debate, because the cull actually flies in the face of scientific opinion. Furthermore, having the cull takes no notice whatever of public opinion and blatantly disregards the will of the House. Only earlier this year, on 13 March, after a debate in the main Chamber, the majority in favour of abandoning the badger cull was 218, yet the Government are ploughing on regardless. They seem to have forgotten that they are elected by the British people, and not by the National Farmers Union.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman draws our attention to the vote in the House. I do not think that he was in Parliament at the time, but the House voted in favour of the Iraq war, which then proceeded, even though the people were against it.
Chris Williamson
That may be true, but on badger culls scientific, parliamentary and public opinion are at one, yet the Government are completely disregarding all those areas of clear opposition to their direction of travel on the issue.
As I was saying, the Government and all of us present are elected by the British people and not by any single issue group. Ministers seem to be behaving as if they were the parliamentary wing of the National Farmers Union. The NFU, however, does not even represent the vast majority of the farming industry. According to the NFU’s own website, it claims some 55,000 members—
Chris Williamson
I will give way in a moment. According to a document published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Agriculture in the United Kingdom”:
“The number of commercial agricultural holdings in the UK has remained stable between 2010 and 2013 at 222 thousand”.
So just under 25% of the farming industry is represented by the NFU, yet the Government, or Ministers at least, seem to be doing the NFU’s bidding, even though it represents only a minority interest in the farming industry.
Neil Parish
I was under the illusion that I was in the Chamber to debate the badger cull, not the National Farmers Union.
Chris Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to that and explain why I am referring to the NFU. Despite public, parliamentary and scientific opinion, the NFU is clearly the only interest group to think that the badger cull is a good idea. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government seem to prefer the views of a pressure group that represents a small proportion of the overall farming industry to the views of science, the public and, overwhelmingly, the House of Commons.
To be clear, last year’s cull was a catastrophic failure. It failed to reach its target within the specified six-week timetable, so what did the Government do? They extended the timetable. The cull still failed to reach its target, which was for some 5,000 badgers to be killed, and it only managed to kill 1,861, making matters worse.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Does he agree that one of the most dismal scenarios that we can have is that of the Government setting their face against the evidence? They not only do not look at the evidence, but try to close it down. On this occasion, for example, they got rid of the independent expert panel that might have been able to tell them whether their cull was being successful.
Chris Williamson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about that point, and I will be coming on to it.
As a consequence of not reaching the target of 5,000 badgers, the Government are likely to have made matters considerably worse because of perturbation, about which they were warned. DEFRA has not only failed in its own terms on effectiveness, but certainly failed on the test of humaneness as well. The independent expert panel, which the Government disbanded, as the hon. Lady said a moment ago, said about year one of the pilot badger cull:
“It is extremely likely that between 7.4% and 22.8% of badgers that were shot at were still alive after 5 min, and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain. We are concerned at the potential for suffering that these figures imply.”
When it was clear that the cull was failing on every possible measure, the previous Secretary of State, unbelievably, blamed the badgers for “moving the goalposts”. In truth, the Government have moved the goalposts and Ministers are behaving like the three wise monkeys. The DEFRA independent expert panel confirmed last year that the cull was unsuccessful in terms of humaneness, as I have mentioned, and ineffective. The figures speak for themselves. The chief scientific adviser to Natural England also made negative comments about the cull, describing it as an “epic failure”.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. No one should be in any doubt that farming communities are suffering as a result of bovine tuberculosis, but is his case not simply that the evidence does not support this method of trying to eradicate bovine TB?
Chris Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his summary of the position. Of course bovine TB is a dreadful illness, but the way in which the Government have gone about tackling it is precisely the wrong thing to do and is likely to be making matters worse. I do not understand why they are ignoring the overwhelming scientific view that the badger cull should be abandoned and a different approach taken.
I was referring to the opinion of the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, who described the cull as an “epic failure”, and was about to ask, what did DEFRA do in response to such overwhelming criticism? It simply changed the methodology. That was described by one badger expert, Professor Woodroffe, as “very crude”. She went on to say that the Government targets
“are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data”,
and that
“with the data that is being collected, it will be impossible to know how effective this year’s culls have been.”
The Government did not like the conclusions of their independent expert panel, so they moved the goalposts again by disbanding it, but the new Secretary of State says that the outcome of the latest culls will determine whether there will be a roll-out across the rest of the country.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is he aware that the BBC is reporting today that a journal of the British Ecological Society has offered to assess the trials independently, in the light of the fact that the independent panel has been disbanded?
Chris Williamson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is important that there is independent assessment of the culls, as there is a real fear of a lack of trust if there is no independent assessment of their effectiveness. We cannot leave it to the Government to determine whether culling has been effective because, as we have seen, they simply ignore the wealth of evidence put before them.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On the subject of assessment, is his conclusion that the cull should not have proceeded or that it did not take place on the right criteria? The public would like to hear what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends propose for controlling a vicious disease that has an impact on wildlife and domestic animals, as well as a huge impact on cattle, which I am sure many hon. Members will go on to discuss.
Chris Williamson
I do not think the cull should have started in the first place, because of the wealth of scientific opinion that I have already outlined. I will come on to the alternative way forward.
I ask the Minister, where is the transparency? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been talking about the importance of transparent Government, but there is no transparency whatever in this process. Ministers and the National Farmers Union need to get real. The main route of transmission of TB is cattle to cattle. That has been independently verified by numerous experts. Ministers need to end this wild goose chase. To respond to the hon. Lady, we need mandatory annual and pre-movement testing for all cattle, and should impose significant movement restrictions. There also needs to be rigorous biosecurity for dairy farms around the country. That has happened in Wales, where the Welsh Government have gone further and have introduced badger vaccination, a move that the Government would do well to adopt, to address the dreadful disease of TB.
I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer when he responds. The public would like to know—it is in the interests of transparent government that they do—who monitored the latest cull; perhaps he will take a note of that question and respond to it. Will he also say when details about the cull will be published and by whom—will it be Natural England or DEFRA? How will humaneness, safety and efficiency be assessed? Those factors were assessed in the first year of culling.
Will a decision on a third pilot be reserved until after the results are assessed, or has that matter already been decided? Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could come clean on that. Indeed, will there be a third pilot or will the Government go straight to a roll-out? We need to know that as well.
Were any badgers tested for TB during the latest cull? If so, how many tested positive? Last year, a relatively small proportion of badgers killed tested positive. What proportion of badgers killed in this year’s culls were cage-trapped? We need to know that, because, as I understand it, part of the rationale behind the cull was to determine the effectiveness of free shooting.
Why was a different methodology for calculating the number of badgers used in year two from that used in year one? Why does the methodology applying to Somerset differ from the one applying to Gloucestershire? That just does not make sense—how can there be different methodologies from one county to the other? Surely that calls into question the bona fides of the Government’s process.
Finally, does the Minister agree with his own Department’s guidance to Natural England that the badger culls need to remove at least 70% of the local badger population within six weeks to avoid the risk of increasing cattle TB rates? If he does, can he explain why the targets set for this year’s pilot culls have been changed?
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on keeping up the impetus on this difficult subject.
Across the House, the majority of Members believe that we should tackle TB humanely and effectively. That includes the issue of how we deal with what is seen to be a contributory factor to the problem, namely the spread of TB by badgers. I am a convert to the cause and was pleased to lead the debate in March that showed overwhelmingly that the will of the House was to come up with a better way of controlling TB. I do not think that the House ever intended to control it by inflicting cruelty on another species, while potentially making the problem worse.
On 7 July I chaired a panel discussion with members of the Badger Trust and Care for the Wild, the director of the Humane Society International, an ecologist and habitat and species specialist, and Dr Tim Coulson, a member of the independent panel of experts. The IEP was unhappy that it could not continue with its work. On top of that, Dr Coulson said that he had asked Whitehall officials about a meeting with the Secretary of State but that request was not followed up.
On 16 July I wrote to the Secretary of State asking her to meet the IEP. The Minister replied on 16 August—over a month later—stating that meetings would be considered on a “case by case basis” and that the Department was
“in dialogue with leading vets and scientists”.
Why has it not, as far as I know—unless the Minister corrects this—met the IEP? Anecdotally, Dr Coulson has told me that the Secretary of State replied to his request by saying that she was terribly busy and unable to find a date. Has the Department still not been able to do so?
How can the public have confidence in the Government if the culls are not independently monitored? As I pointed out in my intervention on the hon. Member for Derby North, there has been a kind offer of independent monitoring by the British Ecological Society. Will the Government consider taking that up? I would like to hear an answer to that today. I gather that there would be no cost to the Government. If the Government are to have confidence that they can take the public with them on this subject, which polarises opinion and creates strong passions, they should be able to explain their actions in a way the public understand. The public could then at least find a reason to support those actions, even if in their hearts they do not support the idea of some animals having to be killed to control the disease.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for having come to the Chamber very recently, Mr Caton; I have been chairing a committee on prison education.
In DEFRA questions last week I saw a glimmer of light, as the Secretary of State said that she absolutely believed in the appliance of science to most of the topics we were talking about, including losing our birdsong in this country. If we apply that to the situation with badgers, there is a small possibility that someone at DEFRA might be waking up to the idea that we need science and proper independent evaluation.
Mrs Main
I hope that I am correct in interpreting what the hon. Gentleman says as meaning that if the Secretary of State was listening to the science, the Government would take a different route. Unfortunately, the science—the results of the trials—does not bear out the hope that there was when the trials were agreed. It is important that we do not have a roll-out based on two failures. We should not consider rolling out any Government policy on the basis of two test runs, whether it is a proposed benefits package or something like the poll tax. Surely we should learn from our failures and not roll out a failure elsewhere.
Bill Wiggin
I am most grateful for that tremendous compliment. I suspect that if the NFU had its way, the schemes would not be pilots but would be rolled out into all areas where there is a high incidence of TB. If the science is so important—I suspect that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) feels it is—will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn the people who are sabotaging these experiments?
Mrs Main
I absolutely condemn anyone who sabotages experiments, and I condemn anyone who puts any of our armed forces, police or anyone else involved, including protesters, in any danger. However, my hon. Friend must accept that passions are running high because logical arguments are being made in various debates and by panels that I have chaired, but people are not listening. If we are to prevent sabotage, which is obviously a last resort for some people, we must ensure that genuine concerns are listened to.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I went down to Somerset recently to meet some of the people monitoring the culls. They are there not to sabotage them, but to ensure that the rules are obeyed and that badgers are not shot and left wounded to die slowly and painfully. They are there to ensure that the rules are kept. I met a farmer who did not want to take part in the cull pilot, but wanted to vaccinate her cattle. She had to stand guard at midnight at the gates to her farm to stop people coming on to her land and trying to shoot badgers. It is wrong to categorise anyone who protests against and monitors the culls as trying to sabotage them. They are just trying to ensure fairness.
Mrs Main
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not labour the point, but my constituents, who have written to me in their hundreds, have lost confidence in the rationale and the way the problem is being tackled. No one is disputing that there is a problem, but we still do not know how many badgers were killed after having been cage-trapped, when that was expressly excluded originally.
I do not believe that the Government’s method of choice will deliver what the farmers and the Government want, so we must look at the matter again. I for one, and hundreds of people in St Albans who care about the humaneness of the approach, believe that the Government are foolish not to listen to two failures. I do not accept that activists have ruined the trials; I suspect that the badger does not wish to comply with the trials, that the marksmanship has not been up to the job, and that the original premise of using free shooting instead of cage shooting was never a realistic means of dealing with the problem. We must come up with an alternative proposal, and I suggest that cattle movements, vaccination and other methods that do not inflict cruelty on another animal species are the way forward.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. At least six Members are on my list as wishing to speak. I want to start the wind-ups at 3.40 pm, so if they are all to have a chance of speaking, hon. Members should all keep their speeches to around six minutes.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for securing this important debate. I have several questions and concerns about this year’s cull, as well as long-standing concerns about the culling policy.
First, the Government said that they plan to use the results of this year’s culls to decide whether to roll out culling to new areas, but they have cut back massively on the data collection and expertise that they need to make an informed decision. They have scrapped independent oversight and the methods recommended by their independent advisers for assessing the humaneness and effectiveness of culling. In so doing, they have undermined their ability to make a well-informed decision. Their chosen methods seem to be completely inadequate, and they have undermined public confidence in a future roll-out decision, not least by fighting two legal battles to avoid independent scrutiny.
My views on the cull are well known. I have always argued that we need to take an evidence-based approach, so it is deeply disappointing that DEFRA has ignored the facts before it and, this year, has even done away with the independent panel, presumably because it did not like its conclusions last time round. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has expressed the view that independent auditing is sufficient, but I stress that that is not the same as peer review. The audit explicitly concerns adherence to DEFRA’s chosen methods, rather than the robustness of the methods themselves. Peer review would have taken that much broader perspective.
This year, there has been no attempt to count badgers in the cull areas, either before or after the culls. The time taken by badgers to die was not recorded, and there has been no oversight by independent scientists. Instead, the effectiveness of the culls has been judged on key data collected by the marksmen. Let us remind ourselves that in 2013, the data they collected were so unreliable that they were considered unusable by the independent expert panel. Available information suggests that any future claim that the 2014 culls have reduced badger numbers sufficiently to control TB will be baseless. Moreover, it will be difficult to believe any claims that this year’s culls are safe, humane and effective, based on the available evidence.
In that context, it is welcome that the British Ecological Society has offered to check the Government’s badger culling trials, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said. I would be interested to learn from the Minister whether DEFRA will accept that offer, and the reason for its decision.
I hope that DEFRA will make every effort to be completely transparent about the information it has gathered on this year’s culls. To that end, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the humaneness of the culls. A non-governmental organisation in Somerset carried out a post-mortem on a badger that had been shot and wounded and showed that it would have suffered for many minutes after being shot. Yet the Government are not issuing any report this time round on the humaneness of their culls. That is a scandal and means that we have no proper means of assessing whether the culls are humane, despite that long being one of DEFRA’s stated objectives. I would like clarification of the number of badgers culled in Somerset. Was the target reached, and is the Minister satisfied that it was the right one, given that the methods used to calculate it have been described by Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London as “very crude”?
I understand that officials estimate the Somerset population by counting setts and multiplying by a fixed number. That estimate suggested that the target should be between 316 and 1,776 badgers killed. Perhaps not surprisingly, DEFRA chose the lower figure. In Gloucestershire in 2013, 39% of the target was met. This year, we understand that it is 41%, according to information that has come out. Will the Minister tell us whether DEFRA expects any increase in bovine TB in the edge areas around the Gloucestershire cull? Given all we know about perturbation in areas where less than 70% of badgers are culled, how will they monitor that?
We know that ineffective culling can make a bad situation worse. By failing to collect the evidence needed to evaluate future policy, DEFRA is failing farmers, taxpayers and wildlife. I hope that the Government will at long last stop blaming the badgers for moving the goalposts and admit that it is time for a complete rethink of their so-called strategy for tackling bovine TB.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a farmer, although I do not keep any stock so I have no financial interest in this debate.
We have again found ourselves having a debate about an incredibly important scientific issue before the scientific evidence has been fully analysed and published by the Minister’s Department. The debate is premature and speculative and will be incompletely informed. The second year of the culls ended on 20 October, and we have not yet seen the results of either of the trials in Somerset or Gloucestershire, so how can we have a reasoned and fully informed debate assessing those trials? I suspect that the debate will be centred on rumour and uninformed results.
Chris Williamson
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Government’s decision to disband the independent expert panel? Surely it would have provided the comfort blanket of impartial evidence.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The Government have said that that they will fully audit the results. When they are fully audited and analysed and properly published, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and others will want to examine them in great detail and return to the House with comments.
One point of fact is the dreadful disease that bovine TB is and the pain it causes to badgers, cattle and farmers. Significant attention has been given to the relatively small number of badgers being culled in these trials, but less attention is given to the 314,000 cattle that have been slaughtered in the last 10 years at a cost of £500 million to taxpayers. Indices of TB in cattle show that it increased ninefold between 1997 and 2010 in England, which now has the highest incidence of TB in the whole of Europe. The cost will rise to more than £1 billion over the next decade if nothing is done to eradicate TB from our communities.
It is important to remember that culling is simply one aspect of the Government’s comprehensive strategy to eradicate TB within 25 years. I hope that no one speaking in the debate will disapprove of that.
Martin Horwood
My neighbour and hon. Friend and I share a concern for Gloucestershire farmers, and I am sure we share the ultimate aim of seeing both cattle and badger populations healthy and TB-free. Does he agree that preliminary data that seem to be emerging in the press, and which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to, suggest that less than half the target number of badgers were killed in Gloucestershire this time? If those data are correct, we may worsen the risk to Gloucestershire cattle because of the perturbation effect.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is speculation, but even if it proves to be true, we will need to have a debate over what the target numbers were, and I shall come on to that later in my speech. We will begin after this second year, and certainly in the third year, to be able to analyse some of the results and see what is already known through some anecdotal evidence, which is that some farms that have had TB reactors for six or eight years have, this year, for the first year in those six or eight years, had no reactors. That may be anecdotal evidence, but it begins to point to the fact that the culls are having a beneficial effect.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that during the course of the randomised badger culling trial there were 472 new confirmed breakdowns to TB in the proactive culling areas? Would he therefore argue that the culls did not work in those instances?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I have great respect for the hon. Lady, but I think she is drawing a false analogy, because the numbers removed in the randomised badger culling trial per square kilometre were considerably lower than the numbers removed per square kilometre in either of these two trials. Let us give the trials a chance—[Interruption]—instead of chuntering about it. These trials are trials—they are exactly that. What we need to do is evaluate the science and see whether it is in favour of the trials or not. I think that would be a constructive way forward.
The cost will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if nothing is done to eradicate TB from our communities. I ask the hon. Lady what her party’s policy is going to be: is she just going to let this disease continue to spiral out of control? Does she want our farmers to continue to slaughter cattle, and does she want to continue to have to pay more taxpayers’ money in compensation? Her public statements so far—I am happy to let her intervene if I am wrong—suggest that she would discontinue the trials, so we will have gone through all the pain, yet we will not have the scientific evidence to be able to evaluate them properly.
Maria Eagle
In my view, there is no point in going ahead with a policy that has been shown not to work, as is the case with this one.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
With great respect to the hon. Lady, it is too early to say. If she will not begin to take some of the anecdotal evidence of people on the ground who have to make their living from farming with cattle, I do not know what else I can say to her. Let us let these trials go ahead and evaluate them. Instead of setting our face against them, let us give them time and see if they work, and then let us hope that we can begin to eradicate this dreadful disease. I repeat what I have just said: this is part of an overall policy to eradicate TB in this country in 25 years. I will allow the hon. Lady to intervene again on me—does she agree with that aim or not?
Maria Eagle
Of course I agree with eradicating TB, but I do not see how one does that by pursuing a policy that does not work.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Well, that is the hon. Lady’s prejudiced view. She does not know yet whether it will work, because this is a four-year trial.
Roger Williams
The hon. Gentleman draws our attention to the public cost of this illness, but the cull that is now taking place is actually at the farmers’ expense. Does he agree that if there is no improvement or if, in fact, it makes things worse, farmers will not be willing to pay for something that acts against their interests?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am extremely grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes, because I make that point very well. As he said, these two trials are entirely at the farmers’ expense, and there would be very little cost in policing them were it not for the activity of the protesters. If we set the cost of culling against the cost of what the farmers are providing, there is no doubt about it: this cull is very considerably cheaper than the cost of vaccination, which is not yet proved to be working either. I would be interested to know, when the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) speaks, whether she thinks vaccination is working in Wales.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The reality is that the Labour Government in Wales fully recognise that they cannot measure the impact of vaccination yet, and what reduction there is of bovine TB in Wales is just the same outside the vaccination area as it is inside, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) can point to no evidence that the alternative Labour method is working in Wales.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I had better make some rapid progress, Mr Caton, or else you will call me to order for not making my six-minute deadline. Let me make one or two brief points.
As I said, it is welcome that vaccination is taking place in certain parts of the country to try to prevent the further spread of this awful disease, but the simple fact is that vaccination does not work for an already infected badger. If it does not work, that infected badger, by going to the bottom of its sett, continues to infect the whole of that sett. It also must be remembered that vaccination generally works better on young badgers. Young badgers do not emerge from their sett for six months or so, and therefore do not get vaccinated for that first vital six-month period of their life when they are likely to be infected by the infected badgers. The other point to remember about vaccination is that badgers have to be vaccinated every year for five years before it is effective.
I have referred to some anecdotal evidence about how the trials have worked, but I can also give the House some actual evidence of where vaccinating is not working. On the Killerton estate in North Devon, where TB is a huge problem, the National Trust has been vaccinating badgers at an annual cost of £45,000 for the past four years, and there have recently been as many as six additional herd breakdowns due to TB, which seems to show that vaccinating alone is not the solution.
Many people cite vaccination in Wales as an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned, but that is not the whole story. Although TB has been reduced in Wales, the current vaccination programme is only being conducted in 1% of the country and it is only in its second year. It is therefore difficult to see how the Welsh experiment—as he said, the Labour party in Wales does not think it is working—has led to a 25% reduction across the whole of Wales, where other factors must be at play.
Therefore, culling must be part of the solution. No less than the president of the British Veterinary Association has said:
“Badger culling is a necessary part of a comprehensive bovine TB eradication strategy”.
I really hope that the Labour party will think carefully about what one of our foremost experts in the country said about that. Vets are the very people who want to see a humane strategy for tackling this disease, because they of all people know what suffering the disease causes to badgers.
Nobody wants to see animals culled. I am an animal lover. Farmers are animal lovers. This is not an enjoyable solution, but it is a necessary one. Clear evidence tells us that no country in the world has got its TB problem under control without removing it in the reservoir of the wildlife. We have seen that in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, all of which are now virtually BTB-free.
On top of that, evidence also tells us that every time there has been a culling programme in this country—any of the six previous trials, including the Krebs trials— there has been a reduction in bovine TB. I accept that in some of the Krebs trials the reduction was relatively small, but that was related to the number of badgers that were taken out. The higher the number of badgers in an area that are taken out, the higher the reduction in BTB, and that, I think, has been fairly well scientifically proven.
In conclusion—because I think I have exceeded your patience and my allotted time, Mr Caton—it is too early to tell whether the culls have been successful. Anecdotal evidence tells us that they are beginning to have some success. Let us hope, for the sake of the farmers who are affected by this dreadful disease and the cattle that will have to be culled, that they are having some effect. The culls will be rolled out only in the very worst areas of BTB. I am all in favour of ring vaccination around those really bad areas, but let us see it as part of a comprehensive strategy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for being steadfast in their desire to eliminate this dreadful disease.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing it.
There is a lot of common ground among Members here this afternoon, in that we recognise that TB is a huge problem—both bovine TB and potentially, the spread of TB in wildlife. We are talking about assessing a pilot scheme in one particular reservoir of wildlife, but heaven forfend that it enter into deer or other aspects of wildlife as well. It is not that long since people suffered from TB, and it is only due to the medical science developed in the last century that that has been controlled. The dangers of TB are, therefore, very real.
On animal welfare, there has to be some balance in the argument. We surely have to accept that, if 314,000 cattle are slaughtered, that in itself is something of a potential animal welfare crisis. What we are all trying to achieve is a healthy badger population living alongside a healthy cattle population.
I would like to know about the science. We are the only country in the European Union, and I believe in the world, that has protected badgers. Has that led to the increase that we have seen in the badger population? Has that, in itself, contributed to the spread of TB in the badger population?
I would now like to raise one or two questions for the Minister to respond to. In the previous Session, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee looked at what the cull’s parameters should be, and I applaud the fact that the Government’s pilot scheme seems, to all intents and purposes, to be following those that we laid down. I should add that I welcome the Minister to his place, and I look forward to his summing up the debate.
If we are to tackle the vaccine situation, we need to deal with a number of remaining issues, and I would welcome the Minister bringing us up to date on them. I applaud the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency, which operates in my constituency and other parts of the country. In Wales, the cost of an injectable vaccine for badgers was estimated at about £662 per badger in 2012. An injectable BCG vaccine has been available for use since March 2012, but there are obviously challenges in using it. To be cost-effective, deployment would have to focus on areas where the vaccine would have the biggest impact. The cost of injecting badgers with vaccine is huge. An oral baited vaccine for badgers, which can be laid at setts, is likely to be cheaper and more practical. I would be interested to know whether the definition of such a vaccine has moved on and whether we are closer to that taking place. Furthermore, from the evidence it received, the Select Committee understood that the current skin test to detect TB in cattle would miss one in four infected cows. Liver fluke, Johne’s disease and even pregnancy may have an impact on the result of a skin test.
How much progress has been made, since the Committee adopted its report, on allowing the vaccination of cattle under European law? That is a vexatious issue. How welcome is vaccination among our friends and allies among other European countries? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that the treatment and control of TB has not been achieved anywhere unless TB has been tackled in the wildlife population. In the long term, vaccination—particularly of cattle, but also of badgers—would be a good way forward, but will the Minister let us know where we are on the vaccination of cattle under European law and how close we are to rolling out field trials in this country, as required under EU law?
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate. However, I must start by saying that, as a Conservative who voted against the badger cull and who has been consistent in my opposition to it, I thought it was rather unfortunate how politicised he made his comments on the NFU. Those of us who oppose the badger cull have enormous sympathy for farmers who find they have bovine TB in their cattle stock and who have to have their stock completely removed, with the suffering they face as a consequence.
I have spoken to the NFU in my region about my opposition to the cull, and it asked me specifically why I opposed it, to which my answer was, “To stop you guys getting it.” My fear about the cull and the science behind it is that they are wrong and it will lead to perturbation, which will spread the disease wider. When I talk to Kent farmers, who, I can tell Members, are not a wing of the local Conservative party, I am therefore opposing the cull as much in their interests as for my own personal reasons.
The hon. Gentleman’s comments distracted us from the real issue, which is that the science does not stack up. The perturbation effect is real. Last year’s culls failed many of the tests that had been set out. They failed on effectiveness, and the pilot came nowhere close to reducing the badger population by 70%. It also failed on humaneness. That is what happened in the first year, but we are having a debate about assessing the second year, without any of first year’s outcomes having been properly considered.
Bill Wiggin
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech very much. Does she agree that if the first year had failed comprehensively because of perturbation, we should see a huge increase in the number of TB reactors in the area around the pilot schemes? I am surprised she has not mentioned that if that is what is going on.
Tracey Crouch
Three tests were set out for the first pilot culls: humaneness, effectiveness and cost. As we know, the costs were extraordinary, effectiveness was not achieved, because the cull did not reduce the badger population in the way that was set out, and humaneness was not adhered to. Those are tests the Government set out. I fear, therefore, that progressing with the second year was a mistake. I voted against it. The Government might think they have a legal mandate to continue with the culls, but they have no political mandate whatever, and I fear they do not have the widespread support of the population.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but I am bound to point out that, in some countries where culling has taken place in wildlife, it has been successful in controlling TB in wildlife and in cattle. The obvious example is New Zealand.
Tracey Crouch
We keep on hearing about the New Zealand experiment, but it had other aspects, such as improved movement and better biosecurity measures. We need to ensure that we have such things as part of a whole package.
I am personally opposed to the badger cull, and I think we should look at other ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, of dealing with the issue, such as vaccination, which is what is happening in Wales. We are seeing a reduction in bovine TB; indeed, I read somewhere, although I cannot find the precise source, that there has been a reduction of 48%. We have to look at these issues. However, the cull was not the right way forward, and it is not the right method now.
Tracey Crouch
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because other people want to speak.
One concern I have with assessing the effectiveness of the culls is that we keep changing the methodology. For example, we had one estimate of the badger population in the first year; now we have another estimate of its size, and that will interfere with a proper independent audit. The large downgrade in the population estimates for last year’s cull has been followed by estimates suggesting that this year’s cull numbers are set to be met in Somerset, but not in Gloucestershire, due to the different methodologies used to estimate badger numbers in the two areas. In Somerset the method involved multiplying the number of setts by a fixed number and taking the lowest figure from the estimated range, a method described by the ecologist Professor Rosie Woodroffe as “very crude”. She said that
“the targets are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data...with the data that is being collected, it will be impossible to know how effective this year’s culls have been”.
I would argue strongly that that is making it nearly impossible to compare or measure success. How, then, can we measure the key levels of success by the Government’s own indicator, if we cannot agree on the population size in the first place?
Others have mentioned the independent expert panel. I was going to say that it is disappointing that it has been disbanded, but I do not think that it has been disbanded, technically; it has just not been reinstated, so it will not meet again. It is incredibly disappointing; the panel was important for close monitoring of the culls. It is also disappointing that not all the data have been published, and an independent audit is now taking place. I would like the Minister to outline who is undertaking that audit. I do not think that any of us fully understands precisely what is being done. Will the audit involve monitoring of the culls? I understand that the British Ecological Society has offered to take on the role but has not been taken up on that. We need another, proper, debate in the House of Commons. If there is to be widespread culling a full-scale discussion in the Chamber is needed, and the Minister needs the political will of the House to go forward. I do not think that he has that. A number of my hon. Friends who originally voted for the culls are now sceptical, following the pilot culls. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that if the policy is not working we must address the issue again, and not continue absent-mindedly through fear of looking weak.
I am a strong supporter of the Government, but we have not seen the results from the culls that the Minister may have wanted, in the initial tests. We need to consider what happens in Wales and not to be so sceptical about the different approach being taken there. We also need to re-examine the issues of cattle movement and rigorous biosecurity on farms. Farmers from high-incidence areas have contacted my office—so I assume they have contacted the Department—to say that they are willing to be trial farms and be involved in vaccination tests as opposed to pilot culls; so I think there are farmers out there who want to consider other methods of tackling bovine TB. I remain absolutely opposed to the badger cull and I hope that the Minister will explain how he will properly assess the results of the second year of badger culls and publish that assessment.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales, and the Country Land and Business Association. Indeed, I still own and keep some cattle. A couple of weeks ago we had a clear TB test, but we have only seven cattle on the farm, now. We used to have well over 200, but because of the difficulty of managing them, as a result of TB, it was decided to get rid of them. We are not the only farm that has taken that decision.
Bovine TB is a very dangerous disease, for cattle and for badgers. It is a zoonotic disease, and it affects humans as well as animals. That, indeed, is why in the 1950s and 1960s there was a great move to rid the country’s cattle herd of bovine TB. Many human beings were infected by drinking raw milk. If the Government did not believe that TB was still a matter of public health, they would presumably wash their hands of it and let farmers get on with things on their own. However, it is still a very serious disease not only for animals but for human beings.
In about 1971 the infection link between badgers and cattle was established and in 2007 the report of the randomised badger culling trials—I am not quite sure whether Professor Krebs or Professor Bourne was in charge at the time—said that between 40% and 50% of cattle infections resulted from transmission by badgers. That was established in an entirely independent assessment. Little mention has been made of DEFRA’s 25-year TB eradication strategy and what it entails—[Interruption.]—I am sorry if I have not paid attention. It is being rolled out at the moment and includes more frequent—yearly—testing in areas where there is bovine TB, more movement restrictions, increased biosecurity, and vaccination at the edge of areas of spread of the disease.
The disease is out of control, spreading northward and eastward at an increasing rate. We must try to hold it back, to protect areas that are still free of bovine TB. The Government have decided to do that through a vaccination strategy, because they realise that culling in an edge area could lead to perturbation and increase the incidence of the disease. However, in areas where it is well established, and where other ways of controlling it have proved ineffective, they have introduced a pilot culling scheme. That approach is based on the randomised badger culling trials, which said that if culling were to be effective it would have to be on a bigger area with, if possible, hard boundaries to prevent perturbation. Perturbation in those areas, however, will not have much effect, because the disease is already well established. Probably up to 40% of the badgers are infected, so the movement of badgers will not make much difference there.
We cannot really assess the success of the culls at the moment, because we need at least four years’ information to find out. That is another thing that the randomised badger cull trial showed: results would not be obtained for about four years. However, it showed that even when those culls had stopped there were improvements in the cull areas and those surrounding them.
We must do more work on oral vaccines for badgers, vaccination for cattle, and the polymerase chain reaction that provides a possible test for infection in badgers. With that, we could trap and test badgers; the healthy ones could be vaccinated and released, and the infected ones disposed of, as vaccination could do them no good. There is a huge amount of work to be done, but I still believe that the pilot cull trials that the Government have instigated are an important part of that work in the heavily infected areas.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is great to follow the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I concur with many of his remarks, if not all of them. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I completely oppose the whole idea of stopping the badger cull: I will explain exactly why.
Between 1999 and 2010, the number of cattle with TB in this country rose from 6,000 to 33,000. That was the period when Labour Members were in control of government in this country. Let us look at the same period in the Republic of Ireland. There were 40,000 reactors to TB in 2000, but by 2012 the number had dropped to 18,500 and it is dropping further now, so the number of cases in the Republic of Ireland more than halved in that period, whereas ours went up by four times.
In the Republic of Ireland, there are badgers and there is virtually the same cattle testing regime as we have, so of all the countries in the world that we look at, the Republic of Ireland is the best one to take an example from. In that case, what was different about the Republic of Ireland in the period to which I am referring? It took the difficult decision—it is a difficult decision; we all respect that and I respect hon. Members in this Chamber who have different views on badger culling—to cull badgers and it is reducing the disease dramatically. If we are to eradicate TB from our cattle, we must tackle the reservoir of disease within badgers.
More than 6,000 reactors a year are taken out of the county of Devon alone. There, we have a real hot spot of TB, and where we have a hot spot of TB in cattle, we also have TB in the badgers. There is a higher percentage of TB in the badgers because they catch it from the cattle, and then the badgers reinfect the cattle. I have made this point many times before. If we are going to test our cattle and test them more vigorously, as the hon. Gentleman said, and take out the infected animals, it is absolutely pointless then putting the cattle back into a field where there are badgers with the disease, because they will just reinfect the cattle all the time.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on this point? Certainly in my part of Somerset, a number of the farmers have declared that they have cattle with TB, but the cattle are not removed from their farms with any level of speed whatever, so it both causes a great deal of distress to the farmers and has the potential to keep the infection level going.
Neil Parish
Yes. The hon. Lady raises a point that my hon. Friend the Minister might well like to deal with. The quicker we can get a reactor off a farm the better, because it is infectious while it is there.
While there is a reservoir of disease in the wildlife and particularly in badgers, we have to cull, and we have to cull in the areas where the badgers have TB and the cattle do. That is why the hot spots are where we target the culling. That is why we targeted Gloucester and west Somerset. That is absolutely right. We will be able to use vaccine in other areas, because in other areas, where there is little TB in the cattle, there is likely to be little TB in the badgers also. Therefore, vaccinating badgers in those areas could well be very successful. The point has been made many times that if a badger is infected with a disease, we will not cure it by vaccinating it. That is why we have to take the very difficult decision of culling infected badgers.
I congratulate very much the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who may have been lambasted by many, but who actually stuck his neck above the parapet and said, “Yes, we will do the thing that is necessary, which is to cull badgers in infected areas.”
The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) opposed the policy from the beginning, so he would oppose it whether or not it was successful. That was never an issue with him, because he has opposed the whole thing, but what do we say to my constituent, David, who is at Ennerleigh farm in Washfield? He has been farming there for generations. Over the last 10 years, he has lost 350 cattle that have had TB. It has been a slow decline all the time—more and more reactors. He needs the pool of wildlife that has that infection to be dealt with, as do farmers across Devon, across the west country and in Wales, because, as has been said, the disease is spreading. If we do not deal with it in those hot spots, we will, in the end, have to cull more badgers, for the simple reason that the disease will have spread, the badgers will get it, they will then disease the cattle and the whole thing will get worse and worse. We cannot go on like the last Labour Government did—prevaricating and prevaricating and doing absolutely nothing.
The current Government have taken the difficult position. We have looked at the cull areas. We have looked at hard boundaries to ensure, as far as possible, that we use major roads, rivers and so on to try to prevent as much perturbation as possible. The system is not perfect. We would accept that and we have learned lessons from last year as far as the humaneness is concerned. As for traps, it is absolutely within the rules for traps to be used, and as for those activists who go out and trash the traps so that we cannot catch the badgers, that is absolute madness, because if we want to cull a badger in the most humane way possible, getting it in a trap so that we can dispatch it at point-blank range will always be the best method of culling.
We have worked so hard to get this going, and the farmers of this country, who keep the cattle, deserve to have the disease brought under control, because this is not only about the meat that we eat and the milk that we drink. It is about the countryside that we see out there and the cattle out in those fields. If we do not get rid of the disease in the wildlife, those cattle will have to stay indoors because it is too dangerous for them to go out, and I do not exaggerate. That is why this Government are making the right decision. I look forward to these pilot culls being successful. We are, again anecdotally, seeing the disease reducing, reactors reducing and outbreaks of TB in Somerset in particular—
Neil Parish
No. You want me to finish by 20 to four, Mr Caton, so I will keep going.
We have seen, anecdotally, a reduction. If we can hold our nerve and ensure that we carry out the culls in a humane way, we will reduce the number of infected badgers in the countryside, in those areas with a high number of TB cases. If we use traps wherever necessary, carry out controlled shooting and ensure that we carry out the cull properly, we will see TB, first, reduce in this country and, eventually, we will eradicate it. If we do not take this action, we will never eradicate the disease. Farmers need to see a good future not only for them, but for their families. Farming is about generations of farmers, generations of cattle and generations of breeding of cattle. That is all being destroyed by this disease, and unless we take this firm action, we will not eradicate the disease.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing the debate. It has been an excellent and passionate one on both sides of the argument. I would like to be clear about the Labour party view of the pilots. It is appalling that the badger culls have gone ahead for a second year when year one was described by David Macdonald, the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, as an “epic failure”. The Government should today commit to abandoning any attempt to continue these unscientific, inhumane and ineffective badger culls. They must instead work with scientists, wildlife groups and farmers to develop an alternative strategy to get the problem of TB under control. That is what Labour would do in office.
I accept that bovine TB is a scourge on our countryside. I have spoken to farmers whose herds have been affected and I have seen at first hand how it can destroy livelihoods as well as the communities that depend on them. I do not think that there is an argument about that. There is no doubt about the fact that the spread of bovine TB is a serious problem in need of a solution.
Maria Eagle
No. We hear, and we have heard today, that the last Labour Government did nothing to address the problem. That is simply not true. We spent 10 years and £50 million on a large-scale trial in the areas worst affected by TB to develop a credible plan to tackle the issue based on the best available science. That work included testing the case for badger culling. The conclusion was that culls make no meaningful contribution to eradicating TB, and that small-scale, localised culling, which had been the policy of the previous Conservative Government, actually worsened the problem. It may be worth noting that the real rise in the spread of bovine TB began in 1979. Far from doing nothing, the previous Labour Government put in place the evidence base that was needed effectively to tackle that scourge.
In a manner so typical of the Government, they have decided that to pursue prejudice-based policy, with no regard to the scientific evidence, is the way forward. The badger cull pilots are one more example of that disregard for evidence. The culling has nothing to do with piloting or learning anything. Indeed, the Government have just fought two legal battles to preserve their right not to learn anything, and I am not the only person who thinks so. Professor Lord May of Oxford, the former Government chief scientific adviser, has said that the approach to the badger culls has shown that the Government
“are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”
In other words, the Government have selectively used evidence to give the illusion of a scientific underpinning for the policy.
The guidance provided to Natural England ahead of licensing the original culls made it clear that the target for culling must lead to the removal of at least 70% of the badgers in the total land area in the application over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks. The two areas where culling took place, Gloucestershire and Somerset, were each granted two extensions in the first year. On timing alone, therefore, both culls failed. In 2013, an independent expert panel was appointed to monitor the culls to assess the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of the pilots. The panel came up with a scientifically robust method for assessing the effectiveness of the culls, which included hair traps and sample testing to provide the best estimate of the local badger population. The results of the IEP monitoring could not have been clearer. The badger culls were ineffective and inhumane. The culls failed.
Simon Hart
If there was a methodology improvement that enabled the contractors to hit that target of 70%, would the hon. Lady support it?
Maria Eagle
I would support a policy that worked. The evidence demonstrates that a cull has to take 70% of the local badger population out in six weeks, otherwise it will be ineffective. In Somerset, only 48% of badgers were removed, and in Gloucestershire that figure was 39%. That is far too few to make those culls effective.
The IEP was only allowed to cover the first six weeks of the culls. The equivalent figures at the end of the extended time were 50.9% in Somerset and 55.7% in Gloucestershire. The extra time taken is likely to have increased the perturbation effect and hence made the spread of BTB more likely. On humaneness, the IEP reported:
“It is extremely likely that between 7% and 22% of badgers that were shot at were still alive after 5 minutes and therefore at risk of experiencing marked pain.”
Not only were the culls ineffective, but they caused unnecessary suffering for badgers. What was the Government’s response to that unwelcome advice from the experts? It was simple: cut out the experts and carry on with the culls. That sums up the Government’s approach. Instead of listening to the science, they decided to do away with it. That, I believe, is why there is not widespread support in the general population for the policy the Government are pursuing. The new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in last week’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions that she believes in science and evidence, but in her first week in the job, she announced her intention to press on with the culls in defiance of the scientific evidence. She missed a clear opportunity to leave prejudice-based policy behind and to place science firmly at the head and centre of her Department’s policy, and I believe that her decision speaks volumes.
The Government also changed the methodology that was used for the second year of the culls. Tim Coulson, a member of the IEP, which the Government have not used this year, in a recent article for the Journal of Animal Ecology commented:
“A change of protocol half way through an experiment reveals such a limited understanding of the scientific method that I am tempted to speculate that the government no longer wants to know whether the pilots are effective or humane. They just want to cull badgers, regardless of whether the population or humaneness consequences can be assessed.”
That, I am afraid, is my view as well.
We know that the badger culls are not being conducted in the name of science. We can only assume that to go ahead with them is the easiest way for the Government to claim that they have a solution to the problem of bovine TB, despite the conclusion of badger ecologists and scientific evidence that culling makes the problem worse. The Government’s decision to ignore scientific evidence and best practice has not been justified by the Secretary of State. The existing evidence makes it clear that culling is not the solution.
The 2013 targets were based on estimates of badger population size derived from capture-mark-recapture using genetic signatures from badger hair snagged in barbed wire. For 2014, there was no such field estimation of badger numbers. In the second year of the culls, the Government have not only departed from the original methodology but used two different methods to set cull targets for Gloucestershire and for Somerset. Why? For Gloucestershire, the Government relied on last year’s estimate, minus the number of badgers killed last year, plus a fudge factor to account for breeding and immigration. For Somerset, they threw out last year’s estimate and multiplied an estimate of the number of active badger setts by another fudge factor that was meant to indicate badgers per sett. Badgers per sett is a meaningless concept, however, because most badgers use more than one sett, and sett use is likely to change as culling disrupts the badgers’ social system.
The cull targets for the second year of the pilots are apparently derived from numbers that have been plucked out of thin air or worked out on the back of an envelope. Those crude methods for estimating badger populations provided a range for the cull target in Somerset of between 300 and 1,700 badgers, which is rather a wide range. DEFRA chose the lowest figure. Analysis by Professor Rosie Woodroffe, which has been referred to during the debate, has shown that there is a 97.5% chance that the cull will fall short of the 70% mark that the evidence shows would give it a chance of being effective.
Will the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the comparability of the methods used to assess the effectiveness from year one and year two of the badger culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset? Will he also clarify the reason why different methods of estimating badger population were used in Gloucestershire and Somerset to determine the numbers of badgers to be removed in year two of the pilot culls? Why did the methodology used to calculate the number of badgers to be culled change from year one to year two?
Will the Minister, in recognition of the importance of having a credible and agreed evidence base, agree to an independent scientific peer review of the methodologies used for determining the humaneness and effectiveness of the second year of the culls? Today, in an open letter from the senior editors, the Journal of Animal Ecology has offered its services
“critically to appraise the methods used and their power to determine the success of this year’s cull”,
and to provide
“a transparent and independent review of the available evidence using our extensive international network of reviewers, comprising scientists with acknowledged expertise in wildlife population monitoring and management, as well as expert statisticians and modellers.”
What possible reason could the Minister have for turning down such an offer? Will he, therefore, accept it? In DEFRA’s calculations of badgers per sett as a means of estimating badger populations, what account was taken of the movement by badgers between setts and the effects of perturbation? Can he confirm that Natural England’s audit addresses only adherence to DEFRA’s chosen methods? As we have seen, those methods are crude, vague, different in Somerset and Gloucestershire and different in years one and two of the culls? Are there any plans to extend badger culling beyond the pilots in Gloucestershire and Somerset ahead of next year’s general election?
What is the Government’s view of evidence from Wales, where there has been no badger culling but where there has been a crackdown on cattle-to-cattle transmission, improved farm biosecurity and a reduction of 18% in new incidents of bovine TB? As hon. Members have mentioned, the Government have continually pointed to international examples of controlling bovine TB in Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland to defend their decision to cull badgers. Do they not appreciate that comparing totally different situations will not yield the insights required for proper evidence-based policy making? Why should data from New Zealand or Ireland be more relevant to England than data from England? Not only are the culls an epic failure, but they are estimated to have cost more than £4,000 per badger killed, according to research undertaken by the Conservative Bow Group. Labour has consistently pledged to put evidence at the heart of policy making, working with scientists, wildlife groups and farmers to develop an alternative strategy to get the problem of bovine TB under control. We need to introduce stricter cattle measures and prioritise badger and cattle vaccinations, but the culls are not the answer.
In March 2014 I wrote to the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), offering to work with him on the development of an evidence-based, cross-party programme. Rather than engaging meaningfully in the search for a proper long-term solution, he ignored scientific evidence, made a decision based on his own prejudice and then offered retrospectively to tell me and other hon. Members what the policy was, expecting us to agree. That is no way to address a disease that will take many years to eradicate. These disastrous culls should be abandoned now, and we should work together across parties to develop an alternative that works.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I welcome the opportunity to respond to today’s debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions, which have covered a wide range of issues.
This year’s culls finished as planned after six weeks, and we are now analysing the data collected over that period. The data are being independently audited in the same way as last year’s. When the analysis is complete, the outcomes of this year’s cull will be published, so I will focus on our approach to collecting the data and assessing populations this year—issues to which many hon. Members have alluded. That is directly relevant to this debate.
We published our approach to monitoring before the culls started, and I confirm that we carried out the planned number of field observations and far more than the planned number of post-mortem examinations—figures that were both set last year. A lot of information has been collected. The processes used for collecting data are also currently subject to independent audit. We are taking the same approach as last year to ensure that our data are robust.
In August 2014 we published a detailed document setting out our precise methodology, “Setting the minimum and maximum numbers for Year 2 of the badger cull”, and before the cull started we published that guidance to help Natural England set this year’s minimum and maximum numbers. We set out clearly how this year’s numbers were derived for each area, and the paper describes in great detail—it runs to 34 pages—the basis of the estimates and any assumptions made. The approach was agreed by the chief scientific adviser. Estimating wildlife populations is subject to uncertainty, as the independent expert panel acknowledged in its report last year. It is important that we use all valid sources of information, giving particular weight to up-to-date evidence about numbers of active setts, based on repeated observations across the whole cull area.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the somewhat unscientific outburst by Professor Rosie Woodroffe. I like Rosie Woodroffe—she hails from Cornwall and even went to the same school as my sister—but she needs to compare the approach taken in the randomised badger culling trials with the methodology we have used this year. The reality is that there was no hair-trapping at all in the RBCTs, on which all our assumptions in the fight against this disease are based. In fact, no assessment of the badger population was made at the start of the culls. Instead, once four years of culling were finished, there was a retrospective attempt to estimate what the population might have been at the start—to back-calculate what the populations were. People have talked about the methodology that we adopted being crude, but how is that for crude? The RBCTs did not even assess the population before they started, and then they retrospectively tried to estimate what the population was.
Compare that with the approach we took this year, which is set out in great detail on pages 10 and 11 of the guidance. We took the end point of the population last year as this year’s starting point. We followed the IEP’s advice and used the cull sample matching method to try to predict the end population after last year’s culls. We then used a number of models, which are set out in detail, to take account of population growth. Those models are largely rooted in long-standing population measurements in places such as Woodchester park over many years—there are 20 years of data—to establish how populations change over a given winter. At the end of that process, as with the RBCT, which is all the IEP had to go on, we finally submitted the population to method 4, which is where one looks at the real activity on the ground. There were sett surveys and sett sticking. We have looked at the latrines and measured actual activity in badger setts. That is a kind of reality check, to check whether our data models are giving the right information.
The shadow Secretary of State highlighted the fact that different approaches were taken in Somerset and Gloucester, and asked why. We set that out in great detail on pages 12 and 13 of the guidance. In Gloucester, there was greater consistency in what the models were telling us about the population, so it was easier to meet that condition. In Somerset there was a conflict between some of the models, so it went with the most reliable model, which used real data in real time on real activity in setts.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What progress has the Minister made with farmers on trying to find ways to improve biosecurity so that there is less contact between badgers and cattle?
George Eustice
We are making progress. In fact, we have been talking to an accreditation organisation about whether we could get farmers to sign up to a package of measures to improve biosecurity, including keeping badgers away from their farmyards, for example, to try to reduce the spread of the disease.
There is a misunderstanding about the IEP. Last year, the IEP was not out in the field in the middle of the night with binoculars to observe the culls. That was done by Natural England staff last year, and they did it again this year in the same way. The IEP did not carry out the post-mortems on badger carcasses last year. It was done by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, both last year and this year. The IEP had a one-off role last year in informing us of how we should treat the raw data that came from AHVLA and Natural England. The IEP was not in the field; it was a desktop exercise. The IEP completed its work, and we do not need to repeat it this year. Do we need the British Ecological Society to repeat what the IEP did last year? No, we do not, because that job was done and completed last year, and this year we have a process that will be audited. If the British Ecological Society has an opinion, it can express a view on this very detailed, 34-page report. People like Professor Woodroffe say that they do not agree with the report, but they have yet to explain why.
George Eustice
I will not give way, because I want to get through as many other points as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and others highlighted the situation in Wales and the limitations of vaccination. He is right that it is wrong to read too many conclusions into the fall in incidences of the disease in Wales. The vaccination trials in Wales cover only about 1% of the land area. We are running our own vaccination trials in the edge area. I have met a number of wildlife groups to discuss taking that project forward to check the spread of bovine TB, so vaccination has a role in fighting this disease. Vaccination is part of the Government’s strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the inaccuracy of the skin tests. We know that the test is only about 80% effective, but where we have a serious breakdown, we often use it in conjunction with the gamma interferon test, which has fewer false negatives but a few more false positives. We can use that where we deem it necessary. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that the RBCT proves that culling does not work, but that is not the case. The RBCT actually proves that, at the end of the four-year cull period, there was an improvement in the number of breakdowns.
I finish by reminding hon. Members that we have the worst bovine TB situation in the developed world. We cannot let that continue if we want competitive, productive and profitable beef and dairy sectors. Other countries that have faced similar problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) pointed out, have demonstrated the route to long-term disease freedom. They show us that addressing the risks posed by wildlife must be part of any coherent and comprehensive approach to tackling this disease.
We now have a very clear strategy for achieving our goal of official TB-free status in England. The approach includes deploying tighter cattle measures, strengthening biosecurity, and vaccinating badgers to prevent the disease from spreading from the TB high-risk area to the edge area. Unlike the Opposition, we are clear that any coherent strategy to eradicate TB must include measures to address the disease in wildlife in TB hot spots. We will continue to use all options available to us today to fight this dreadful disease, which has been out of control for 20 years. Doing nothing is no longer an option, which is why we intend to stick with this strategy.
Ovarian Cancer (Gene Testing)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and I am grateful to have secured this vital debate on ovarian cancer, and more specifically on the implementation of genetic testing techniques for every woman diagnosed with the illness. Ovarian cancer affects more than 6,500 women in the UK each year, making it the fifth most common cancer among women. In fact, more than 150 women a year are diagnosed with the disease in Northern Ireland alone. It is most common in women—
Ms Ritchie
Again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I am pleased that the Minister is here to respond on this delicate, critical and vital issue for women.
Ovarian cancer is most common in women who have had the menopause, but it can affect women of any age. Notably, the symptoms can be difficult to diagnose, as they are common to many other less serious ailments. Sadly, that leads to many women not getting the treatment they need quickly enough. It is the most aggressive gynaecological cancer. Only about 40% of women are still alive five years after being diagnosed, according to research in the British Medical Journal.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As she knows, I do a lot of work in my constituency with the Mandeville cancer unit. When I visit it, I see a lot of younger women who have the disease. Hospital staff tell me that early intervention is one of the ways that it can be resolved, so I fully support the hon. Lady in her bid today.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman his intervention. I agree that it is all about early diagnosis. Women who are diagnosed in the early stages of ovarian cancer have a 90% chance of surviving the next five years, but if the cancer is found at a later stage the five-year survival rate is reduced to 22%—quite a startling statistic. Clearly, early diagnosis and treatment is vital.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important issue to the House’s consideration. Some 39% of women carry the harmful BRCA1 gene and up to 70% carry the BRCA2 gene. Does the hon. Lady think that those with a family history of the disease should be tested earlier to ensure they have regular check-ups and screenings? Does she also think that those outside that 39% should have checks?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that early diagnosis of ovarian cancer is the key for women.
UK survival rates for ovarian cancer are among the lowest in western Europe, with one woman dying every two hours from the disease. Sadly, according to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, survival rates for the cancer have not improved significantly since the early 1990s. Dr Miriam McCarthy of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland pointed out at a recent hearing in Stormont that the northern European and Scandinavian countries have five-year survival rates above 40%, so we could clearly do more to combat the cancer.
Anybody who has personal or familial experience of this dreadful illness knows the devastating impact it has. In Northern Ireland, a lady called Una Crudden courageously documented her fight with the disease and inspired many others to do the same. I know of a young lady, a teacher in my constituency called Oonagh Carson, who died last year shortly after diagnosis, which took her a long time to get.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. My aunt died of ovarian cancer some years ago.
One of the areas that I am sure the hon. Lady wants to highlight is the role of genetic testing for ovarian cancer and the BRCA gene. Is she aware of the work that is being led by the Institute of Cancer Research in conjunction with the Royal Marsden on mainstreaming genetic testing in this area? That programme has already produced a free-to-access pathway that has already enabled 200 women to be tested and could be rolled out to other hospitals. It has been shown not to cost any more, but it can save many lives.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his useful intervention, which highlights the need for genetic testing and the good pilot work that is being done at the Royal Marsden. It is a pity that that work cannot be rolled out in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. We must not forget that such work has already been executed in Scotland.
By better informing the public and GPs and implementing modern genetic testing techniques we can prevent many more women and their families having to live through the trauma of ovarian cancer. I want to focus on genetic testing techniques that have become available and will have a key role in the battle against this dreadful disease. Genetic techniques have rapidly moved out of the realms of science fiction and are having a significant impact on the way we approach and treat illnesses. Without overstating scientific advances and promising miracle cures, we have a responsibility to utilise those groundbreaking new techniques in everyday medicine. As we learn more about the genetic basis for diseases and certain cancers, this becomes not only a medical issue but an issue for society as whole.
There is an onus to manage and develop new information in a responsible, morally sound way that informs people, rather than distressing or panicking them. The public have been made more aware of those techniques by high-profile figures telling their stories. For example, Angelina Jolie has spoken about the tragic death of her mother from ovarian cancer and her decision to have preventive surgery. Mainstream awareness can only be a good thing, but we must harness it positively to empower women to make informed choices about their treatment. Speaking about her experience of genetic testing and of dealing with the illness, Angelina Jolie said:
“Wherever I go, usually I run into women and we talk about health issues, women’s issues, breast cancer, ovarian cancer. I’ve talked to men about their daughters’ and wives’ health. It makes me feel closer to other people who deal with the same things and have either lost their parents or are considering surgeries or wondering about their children.”
In the same way, women in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK who have or are at risk of the disease are desperate to have access to the information that advanced genetic testing can reveal. The genetic testing normally involves having a sample of blood or tissue taken. The sample will contain cells containing DNA, which can be tested to find out whether someone is carrying a particular mutation and is at risk of developing a particular condition or illness.
Specifically, BRCA1/2 gene testing, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), has emerged as the leading genetic test related to ovarian cancer. We all have these genes, but a mutation on them can increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer from one in 54 to approximately one in two. Evidence shows that one in five women with non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, which accounts for 70% of all cases, carries the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, which dramatically increases their risk of developing the disease. The BRCA gene test at a time of diagnosis offers patients the best guidance for their treatment and should be a matter of priority to ensure that the optimal treatment pathway is selected, whether that is drugs or preventive surgery.
Critically, a BRCA test at a time of diagnosis can change the management of their treatment and save the lives of relatives, who can also be guided toward taking the test. Women in possession of this knowledge are able to make better decisions on their own treatment, as can their close relatives. They can make better informed decisions on surgical and drug treatment options. Indeed, the presence of the mutation points to a form of the disease that responds better to PARP inhibitor drugs, such as the new drug Olaparib, on which the European Commission is considering a recommendation for approval. Dr Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in gynaecological oncology at Hammersmith hospital in London, has stated:
“PARP inhibitors are more effective at killing cancer cells and shrinking tumours in patients with BRCA 1/2 than those without. They are particularly important for BRCA1/2 patients who have a recurrence of ovarian cancer, and for whom there might not be many options.”
In short, I contend that it is clear that we need to implement a system across the UK and Northern Ireland where women diagnosed with ovarian cancer automatically receive a BRCA gene test and have the option for close relatives to take that test as well. I have no doubt that that would save lives and put women in a position where they can make decisions based on all the available scientific evidence. What is the Minister’s position on that?
On cost and commissioning, such techniques have unfortunately not received the attention or funding they deserve from NHS commissioners or the Department of Health in England and Wales or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland. Despite qualifying under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and despite the introduction of mandatory testing in Scotland, the tests are not uniformly available across the UK. It is also evident that clinicians and practitioners in Northern Ireland and England are unclear who is responsible for commissioning BRCA testing. Can the Minster provide clarification on those arrangements and confirm that testing qualifies under NICE guidelines?
BRCA testing has been highly selective and based largely on family history, which risks missing out on three out of four people with the gene, according to the charity Ovarian Cancer Action, which I commend on its work. It published a report some time ago and has been at the forefront of this campaign. It argues that all women with non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer should be considered for the test on diagnosis. It should be clarified and reiterated that the procedure is already in place in Scotland. Trials at the Royal Marsden hospital, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), show that such testing could be extended in a cost-effective manner to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to emphasise that point. The research evidence shows that productivity is increased by doing the testing as part of an oncology appointment, rather than as something separate. The trials are delivering that in a way that is not costing the NHS more, and it is having huge benefits.
Ms Ritchie
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is estimated that a BRCA1/2 gene test for someone already diagnosed with ovarian cancer costs the NHS between £600 and £850. Associated counselling can cost between £250 and £500. Together, that can amount to approximately £1,000 a patient. Some 15% to 20% of those tested are likely to receive a result that shows they have the gene mutation. There are likely to be additional costs for resulting tests on close family members, but the early diagnosis and treatment of those individuals will be especially beneficial. The evidence shows that BRCA gene testing is cost-effective in other countries. Modelling conducted in association with NICE guidelines on familial testing suggested that BRCA1/2 gene testing versus no gene testing was particularly cost-effective in women aged 35 to 55.
In conclusion, this disease is one of the most prominent threats to women’s health. It is particularly difficult to diagnose and treat early, and it is obviously devastating and very sad for sufferers and their families, but we are on the cusp of being able to treat it more effectively. Through the introduction and implementation of genetic testing on diagnosis, we can make a significant impact on survival rates and familial guidance. Will the Minister inform us what the Department’s position is on automatic BRCA gene testing for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer? What discussions has she had with NHS Scotland about its existing programme? What discussions does she plan to have with counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales about such measures? It would be welcome if she could provide clarification on who is responsible for implementing BRCA testing, as there is a degree of confusion over the current arrangements.
In bringing forward modern genetic testing techniques, we can improve survival rates for this terrible and sad illness and put us, as women, in a more empowered position where we can make the best informed decisions on our treatment and the well-being of our close relatives. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various issues I have outlined.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for bringing this important issue to the House today. She has a long-standing interest in health issues and she has made the case very well for why we need to look closely at this important disease. I will come back to her after the debate on any point that I am not able to respond to now, particularly the technical aspects. I want to give the House a bit of the picture on what else is happening on ovarian cancer, as well as addressing the specific issues that she raised.
As the hon. Lady said, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer for women in the UK. The current five-year survival rate is 44%, but we know that if we get the critical early-stage diagnosis, up to 90% of women survive for at least five years. We know that we could save 500 additional lives each year if we matched the best European survival rates. The debate comes at a poignant time for me, because I lost a very dear friend to ovarian cancer less than three weeks ago. I am well aware of the pressure that the disease brings to bear on the families of those affected. We are investing an additional £750 million over four years in England to improve early diagnosis, and I will discuss the details of that and of treatment later.
The hon. Lady’s speech focused on testing and the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. As she rightly said, a family history of cancer is one of the most important risk factors for ovarian cancer, with about one in 10 ovarian cancers being caused by an inherited faulty gene such as the two to which she referred. Incidentally, the genes also increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer. We know that women with a mother or sister diagnosed with ovarian cancer have three times the risk of ovarian cancer of women without such a family history.
NICE’s most recent guidelines recommend offering genetic testing to people with a 10% risk of carrying a BRCA mutation, which is lower than the 20% risk previously recommended. I remind hon. Members that NICE clinical guidelines represent best practice and that we expect NHS organisations in England to take them fully into account when designing services to meet the needs of the population. As a result of their complexity and the different states of readiness for implementation in the NHS, clinical guidelines are not subject to the same statutory funding regulation as technology appraisals. Clinical guidelines therefore have a slightly different status, but it is none the less important that NICE has revised them. NHS England is considering the new recommendation in developing and publishing a single national clinical commissioning policy to confirm the routinely funded NHS threshold for testing.
Like the hon. Lady, I thank Ovarian Cancer Action for all its work in this area. The recently released report on BRCA testing raises important issues, some of which were aired in the hon. Lady’s speech and in interventions. NHS England has said that moving to routine testing at a 10% risk would require a significant capacity and funding investment in genetic testing, diagnostics, counselling and treatment. NHS England is currently considering the potential for funding a revised 10% testing threshold in 2015-16 as part of its annual funding prioritisation process. I will draw NHS England’s attention to the strength of feeling in this debate and to the interesting points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for South Down made about cost-effectiveness. I will also stress that Parliament continues to have considerable interest in the subject.
The hon. Lady touched on groundbreaking techniques, which provides me with an opportunity to refer to the 100,000 genomes project. We can see the potential of genomics to understanding cancers and rare illnesses and finding new treatments. In 2012, we launched the 100,000 genomes project, through which 100,000 whole genomes from NHS patients will be sequenced by 2017. The project will focus on patients with a rare disease and their families, as well as patients with cancer. Ovarian cancer is in the programme’s scope, and it will hopefully enable us to continue our record of groundbreaking cancer research here in the UK.
I will update hon. Members on the two major screening trials for ovarian cancer taking place in the UK. The first is looking at two possible techniques: trans-vaginal ultrasound and a blood test for cancer antigen CA125. Both of them are being tested as part of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening. The study is being funded by the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK, with the Government funding the NHS costs of the study. The first phase of results was promising for both techniques, and the final results are due in January 2015. The UK National Screening Committee, which advises the Governments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on screening matters, is preparing to assess the results of the trial against its internationally recognised criteria for a screening programme and to make a recommendation on that basis, which could be a significant move forward. A second study, the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study, which began in 2005, is also looking to develop an optimised screening procedure for ovarian cancer in high-risk women, such as those to whom the hon. Lady referred.
Returning to early diagnosis, there is cause for encouragement, but we must continue to consider early diagnosis at every possible moment. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the impact of early diagnosis on survival rates. The Government have committed £450 million to achieving earlier diagnosis and improving survival. The funding supports improved direct GP access to four key tests, including non-obstetric ultrasound, to help with speedier diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Those tests are being used; in June 2014, GPs requested more than a quarter of all tests that may have been used to diagnose cancer under the direct access arrangements. The test with the highest proportion of GP referral was ultrasounds that may have been used to diagnose ovarian cancer, 46% of which were requested by GPs.
I also want to update the House on the “Be Clear on Cancer” preventive work in England. We want to improve outcomes for women, which is what Public Health England is working towards. With the Department and NHS England, it ran a regional “Be Clear on Cancer” ovarian pilot campaign early this year to raise awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Like other cancers with poor survival rates, many of the early symptoms can be similar to those of benign conditions, making early diagnosis difficult. The next step is to assess thoroughly the data from the regional pilot, which will help us make informed decisions about which cancer and symptom-awareness campaigns to take forward in 2015-16.
On research, the National Institute for Health Research’s clinical research network is currently recruiting patients to more than 30 ovarian cancer clinical trials and studies. In partnership with Cancer Research UK, the NIHR is also funding 14 experimental cancer medicine centres across England, six of which have a focus on ovarian cancer. A good amount of research is ongoing.
In addition to giving some sense of where NHS England is on BRCA testing, I hope that I am also providing a rounder picture of what else is going on in the field, including screening, diagnostics and awareness campaigns. It is important that the matter gets this level of attention.
Ms Ritchie
Has the Minister had any discussions with the NHS in Wales and in Northern Ireland? Like her, I have personal experience from knowing people who have died. Perhaps their situation could have been made easier had they had much earlier diagnosis.
Jane Ellison
Although the decision is one for NHS England, the debate has highlighted the fact that interesting work is going on in Scotland. The scale of the challenge is smaller in numerical terms, but I am interested in finding out more about what is going on. I will certainly initiate a conversation to understand what is going on in the four countries of the United Kingdom. I have regular conversations with Health Ministers from other nations for other reasons, as the hon. Lady knows. It may not be possible to raise this specific issue in those conversations, but I will ask for more information to see whether lessons can be learned and to understand the points identified in studies about the cost-effectiveness of early testing, in order to ensure that we have bottomed that out.
I hope that this short debate has served to highlight the issue’s importance. I am always grateful for an opportunity to discuss such important issues and to ensure that the House expresses its interest in making better progress on cancers with the poorest survival rates. I hope I have also updated the hon. Lady and other interested Members on what else is going on to try to improve outcomes for family and friends and to achieve better results in future. I thank for bringing the debate to the House today.
Dangerous Driving Offences (Sentencing)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. We can now move on to the final debate of the afternoon, which is on sentencing for dangerous driving offences. The Member leading the debate has already indicated that many hon. Members would like to intervene, which is entirely in his gift. I will only say that we do want to hear the Minister as well, because the questions that are asked need to be answered. I ask everyone to bear that in mind during the debate.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, in this incredibly important debate on sentencing for dangerous driving. The fact that so many hon. Friends and colleagues have turned up for the debate demonstrates the strength of feeling across the House on the issue. I want to highlight the case of my constituents, John Morland and Kris Jarvis, who were killed by a dangerous driver. I also want to press for a change in the law to toughen sentences for dangerous driving.
The case of John and Kris is incredibly tragic. They were cycling in my constituency on 13 February and were hit from behind by a car driven by a man called Alexander Walter. He had stolen the car, was disqualified from driving, and was two and a half times over the alcohol limit. In the 24 hours before the accident, he had taken cocaine, and it emerged afterwards that he had already made 14 court appearances and had 67 convictions, one of which related to him phoning Heathrow airport to make a bomb hoax only days after the 9/11 tragedy. Walter walked away from the wreckage without a scratch. John and Kris did not; they died at the scene due to their appalling injuries.
John and Kris were family men, and as a result of the accident seven children lost their father; parents lost their sons; brothers and sisters lost their siblings; and the fiancées of John and Kris, who are present and are listening to the debate, Hayley Lindsay and Tracey Fidler, lost the love of their life. I was particularly touched by a point that Tracey made in the local paper: since the age of 17, they had never spent a day apart. I pay tribute to the courage, bravery and strength of character of Tracey and Hayley. They have spent months trying to rebuild their shattered lives and dreams. They are very grateful to their friends and families, who have helped them, but the reality is that those families started a life sentence on 13 February.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend most wholeheartedly on securing this vital debate. I pass on my condolences to the families he mentioned. I have enormous sympathy for their case. A year ago yesterday, two teenage girls from my constituency were mown down by a gentleman driving at more than twice the speed limit on a cocktail of drugs, for which crime he received a nine-year prison sentence, which amounts to less than 4.5 years per life. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is completely inadequate for the life sentence that that man inflicted on those families?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will make the case for changing the law, but she has set out clearly that at the end of the day we are talking about families and justice. That is what we are all fighting for in this House. As I said, the families started a life sentence—a life without their loved ones—on 13 February. By contrast, Walter got 10 years and three months for killing two innocent men. He committed what I understand from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance to be a level 1 offence. He was also responsible for just about every aggravating factor listed in the guidance that anyone could think of. Perhaps the Minister will comment, but why on earth was the maximum tariff of 14 years not levied against that man?
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for taking up this serious issue. Will he join me in requesting that the Crown Prosecution Service considers charging with manslaughter far more often, rather than charging with death by dangerous driving? If a person causes someone’s death by behaving in a grossly negligent or reckless manner anywhere else in society, they are charged with manslaughter. If that happens on the road, however, they are not; they are charged with death by dangerous driving. There is no legal reason why that should be. If a person is convicted of manslaughter, that gives the sentencing court far more powers, and a maximum possible sentence of life, rather than 14 years.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is an expert in the law, and he knows about these matters, so I hope that the Minister has listened to what he said. We will talk about the review being conducted by the Minister, but I hope that that point will form part of it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a timely debate. I started the campaigning group PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, many years ago, because I saw two people lying by the side of the road dying. My passion has always been to stop such needless deaths. Does he agree that we want evenness of justice in this country? Wherever in our land that ghastly offence of death by dangerous driving occurs, there should be the same penalty with the same severity.
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman is right. I was about to say that even had the offender in the case I mentioned got 14 years, that would not have been enough. The reality is that that man, Walter, will probably be out of prison in a lot fewer than 10 years.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on raising again this most emotive issue. I draw the attention of the House to my constituent, 18-year-old Olivia Flanagan, who was killed last December by Luke Sykes. Mr Sykes was over the drink-drive limit and had hit a number of cars before ploughing into Olivia’s car. He was driving at a blind summit on the wrong side of the road, and Olivia happened to be coming the other way. The man had 15 previous driving convictions and had only recently got his driving licence back. He had also ticked a box on the licence stating that he did not suffer from mental illness, although he had a history of such illness.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that is far too long for an intervention.
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes the important point that we must have a punishment that fits the crime. We have a justice system that sometimes has much more regard for the criminal than the victims—not only the victims who are killed, but their families and friends who are left behind to pick up the pieces.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point that he is making is particularly relevant to motoring offences? Until the legal system—the courts and the police—treats people who get behind the wheel of a car as being in charge of a lethal weapon, and until those people realise that they are in charge of a lethal weapon, his constituents and the constituents of all of us who have experienced such terrible losses will never feel that justice has been done.
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As we all agree, the law has to change in the case of dangerous driving.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I agree with everything that he has said so far. Another element is that the CPS, when looking at such cases, sometimes chooses to go for the lesser charge of careless driving. That is what happened in the case of my constituent, James Still, who was killed on new year’s eve 2010, and whose family I am supporting. May I also bring my hon. Friend’s attention to the round-table meeting that I am setting up with MPs and victims’ families? All hon. Members are invited to meet with the families. I will ensure that anyone who has not already had an invitation gets one.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was aware of the meeting and will of course attend, as I am sure everyone present will. Despite the grief that Tracey and Hayley have to live with every day, they want justice for John and Kris. They want to ensure that the lives of their loved ones were not lost in vain. They are asking for a change in the law. Despite all the problems that they face as a result of the loss of their fiancés, they have had the courage to put forward an e-petition, which was prepared with the help of a fantastic local campaigner in my constituency, Teresa Colliass, and is now on the Government website. The petition calls for drivers to receive a maximum sentence of 14 years per person who has been killed.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Tragically, there was a similar case in my constituency last year, when Ross and Clare Simons, riding a tandem bike, were mown down by a dangerous driver who was disqualified and had many previous convictions. Ross and Clare’s families, and the campaign, “Justice for Ross and Clare”, today back Tracey, Hayley and their families in a common cause: 14 years should be 14 years per person killed. We should not have concurrency—sentences being served together. My offer is that we and those families work together to get the law changed urgently.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: families want to make sure that we have not concurrent but consecutive sentences. If Walter had been given 14 years for each death, he would now be facing 28 years behind bars rather than being out in what will probably be a lot less than 10 years.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. We all agree on the importance of the review of sentences for driving offences. I am sure that like everyone else here, he would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on when that review will happen.
Alok Sharma
I am sure the Minister will address that point in detail.
I put on the record my thanks to the Reading Post and The Reading Chronicle for publicising the case and the petition. I also thank The Sun, which has done so nationally, and many others for helping to publicise the petition. So far, 25,000 people have signed. Both I and the families want to see a lot more signatures.
I do not believe that 10 years was a long enough sentence for what Walter did. The families affected do not believe that, and, so far, 25,000 people across our land do not, either. We have heard today that Members of Parliament representing many, many people across our country do not believe that that was right. I would like us all to sign the petition, which should influence the review, and to bring about a change in the law.
There are a number of specific things I want to hear from the Minister. I understand that he cannot predetermine the review. But does he understand the strength of feeling there is in the country about this issue and that Members of Parliament, members of the public and families who are affected by such tragedies want to put victims first? Does he have sympathy for the petition’s aims? The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) talked about the ongoing review on all driving offences. How can members of the public influence the review? Will there be a public consultation?
I want justice for John and Kris, as do their families. Hon. Members want justice for the families of constituents who have been affected by this crime. When it comes to dangerous driving, the punishment must fit the crime. It is high time we had a change in the law.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate, which I welcome. My thoughts and prayers are with his constituents’ families, and all those who have been mentioned today. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), a former Road Safety Minister, is in his place to listen to the debate. I pay tribute to him, and will refer back to the work done on this issue over the years, not least the work that he and I both did in our former occupation.
Far be it from me to nudge my colleagues into going before any Committee, but given the absolutely understandable strength of feeling here today, the petition may well get 100,000 signatures, and no doubt should. It should go before the Backbench Business Committee, as we need a much longer debate on the matter. I do not mind whether I respond to that debate or the Road Safety Minister does, but the House should hear more about the effects on Members’ constituents, including my own—Ministers should never forget that we are still MPs, and I know my constituents will support many of the comments made today.
Nothing I say today will bring back Kris and John. As an ex-fireman, ex-paramedic and ex-Road Minister—I have lots of ex-careers—one of the most poignant jobs I have ever had was going to what used to be called, inappropriately, road traffic accidents and are now quite rightly called road traffic collisions. I pay tribute to all our blue-light responders: our police, ambulance and fire crews, and representatives of local authorities, who are now often there. They do a fantastic job for us every day. Going to an incident is enormously difficult, as responders can see what has been done to an individual or individuals by someone who should never have been driving the car in the first place because they were disqualified—as in this case—who should not have been behind the wheel because they were drunk and who had no regard for another person’s life.
Far be it from any parliamentarian, including me, to tell a judge what they should do in their court—we do not have that system in this country, thank goodness—but it is absolutely right and proper that Parliament decides the punishment for a crime. It is then for the judges to interpret that. In this particular case the judge interpreted the law and decided that the sentence would be 10 years and three months. The offender and his legal team appealed against that sentence, but thank goodness we saw common sense.
For this offence it falls within the capabilities of the prosecuting team to appeal to the Attorney-General against an unduly lenient sentence. I do not know what the Attorney-General might have decided, but that option was certainly within the capability of the prosecution. As a Back-Bench MP, I appealed against lenient sentences on many occasions, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) touched on the issue of what the CPS looks at. I am not a lawyer—there are many in the House—but the problem with the law as it stands is the issue of intent. It is a question of whether the driver intended to go and do what they did. That is why the CPS tends to hold back from prosecuting for murder or manslaughter. It is entitled to do that, however; that is within the regulations.
I turn now to what we are going to do—and not only because of the debate, the petition and the ongoing review. There are a couple of matters I will touch upon.
Mike Penning
I will not. I know that sounds very rude, but I spoke to the Chair before the debate, and because so many people have intervened—that is why I would like a longer debate on the issue at some later point—I will not get through all the points I want to raise if I do. If I get through all the points that I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West I would raise in my response, I will then give way.
The review is massively important, in that it will look not so much at the offences—those are within a different brief—but at what the penalties should be. I will not pre-empt the review but I agree that we need to look carefully at whether the punishment fits the crime. We should look at the difference between driving a car and killing somebody—when drunk, or without insurance, or a licence, or any of those things we know people should have—with the intent to do that and killing a person with intent in any other way. That will be part of the review.
We will consult extensively. I know that families are listening to me—not only those who are here today because of the debate but families across the country—and I want everybody involved in that consultation. It is vital that not just judges, prosecutors and politicians, but the families of the victims themselves—I would say that as the Victims Minister—are involved.
We can make some changes while the review is going on. For instance, I find it completely perverse that the driving ban that that gentleman—I use that word in inverted commas—was given in court is running while he is serving his sentence in prison. I have never understood the legislation on that. That situation will change, outside of the review. The ban will start when they come out.
Mike Penning
If I give way to the right hon. Gentleman I will have to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). I will do that if I can, but in a moment. I know the exact time that I have, and if there is time left I will give way.
It is also important that when someone gets this type of sentence there is openness and honesty about why it was given. I have been talking extensively to judges about that recently. Although the courts, quite rightly, must be independent, guidance from Parliament tells them what the will of Parliament is—that is what judges are supposed to look at—when such abhorrent offences take place. One area where we can give the courts and certainly the police more help is in matters such as the terrible incident that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), which was drug-related. At the moment, it is difficult to prosecute someone for drug-driving for myriad reasons, not least that some drugs leave the system quickly. That is why we intend to introduce roadside drugalyser testing—I started the process when I was the Minister responsible for roads—and in-station drugalyser testing.
I have often attended RTCs, and I know from experience, as does the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is another former Transport Minister, that someone who has been involved in an accident, often when someone has died, may have been under the influence of drugs. However, if they are breathalysed that may not show up enough to prosecute them, even though we all know that that person is under the influence of something. We must, morally, do something about that, and I have been working on it with other countries.
As I have made good progress, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and then to the right hon. Member for Exeter.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the Minister agree that we must tighten up when reissuing licences to people who have been disqualified? We need a multi-agency approach to ensure that repeat driving offenders get their licence back only if it is agreed they should.
Mike Penning
Yes, and that is important. We are tight on people who have been banned for drink-driving, and they are often required to get a medical report saying that they do not have a drink problem. Anyone who ticks the box to say that they do not have a mental illness or mental health issues when they have such problems breaks the law.
The key is to work with the insurance companies. That may be a strange way of looking at the issue, but they are interested in what offences have taken place because they insure the risk. That was why, when I was at the Department for Transport, I gave insurers access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data so that insurers knew whether someone had been banned and whether they had points on their licence when applying for insurance. Such people often lie about that, as the person that my hon. Friend mentioned did. That person was subsequently involved in an incident and was not insured.
Mr Bradshaw
Why should anyone who has committed such an offence ever be allowed to drive again? They should be banned for life.
Mike Penning
I have some sympathy with that, but if someone comes out of prison and lives in an area where they must rely on driving to work—[Interruption.]
Mike Penning
Well, at the end of the day, when someone has served their sentence I want them not to be a burden on the state but to work. In rural parts of the country, such as that which the right hon. Gentleman represents, that might exclude someone from working. I am willing to look at the suggestion, but it is not as simple as just saying “tough”.
Caroline Dinenage
The Minister is being incredibly patient in giving way. I strongly welcome what he said about looking at changing the rules so that a driving ban runs from the end of a sentence. That has been the biggest slap in the face for the families of Olivia and Jasmine in my constituency—the gentleman concerned was given a seven-year driving ban despite getting a nine-year jail sentence. That was utterly disgusting.
Mike Penning
We talked earlier about the punishment fitting the crime. What is the logic of giving someone a driving ban when it will be over when the offender comes out of prison?
It is poignant for the families to know that their petition works, and that so may colleagues from throughout the House have come to this debate. It is important that there should be a much more open debate on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would be amenable to that, because there has been cross-party support in the Chamber today.
As the review goes forward, nothing should be ruled out, which is what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West was alluding to in his comments to me. There will be some natural concerns from the judiciary and colleagues, which is fine. Let them put that into the mix, but the most important people who need to be part of the consultation are the families of the victims. No one can replace their loved ones, but if they have the courage of those who have come here today saying this should not happen to anyone else, perhaps we can make this country a safer place.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Infrastructure Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written ministerial statement:
I wish to update the House on an aspect of the Infrastructure Bill, on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government and my noble Friend, Lord de Mauley, of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Better use of previously used, brownfield land is at the heart of the coalition Government’s planning reforms. Our ambition is for there to be permissions in place to accommodate 200,000 new homes on suitable brownfield land by 2020. The Government are committed to playing their part, ensuring that where they own land that they no longer need, this land is returned to economic use more quickly and effectively, building homes and creating jobs. Better use of this type of land will support our desire to protect the green belt and amenity land, such as forests, woodlands and open spaces.
We are committed to continuing to improve and accelerate this programme, removing the internal Government bureaucracy that causes delays and impedes progress. From 2015, this will mean transferring a significant amount of land from Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies to the Homes and Communities Agency. These transfers will enable the Homes and Communities Agency to prepare that land for release to market, promoting house building and boosting economic growth.
Currently, land held by Government’s existing arm’s length bodies cannot transfer directly to the Homes and Communities Agency, and instead must transfer first to the parent department, before it can then transfer to the Agency. Clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill which is currently working its way through Parliament, aims to simplify this process and reduce bureaucracy so that land owned by arm’s length bodies can be transferred directly to the Homes and Communities Agency without having to go through the parent department. The bodies that will be able to transfer land to the Agency are to be named in regulations.
There has been some suggestion that this minor adjustment to the Government’s existing powers to transfer land presents a threat to the future of the nation’s publicly-owned forests. It does not, and Ministers would like to make this crystal clear. The intention behind the clause is not to sell off socially or environmentally important publicly-owned land such as the nation’s forests. These forests are not surplus, they are in use and the new powers will not be used for this purpose.
The Government recognise the significant social, environmental and economic value of the public forest estate to the nation and made a clear public commitment, in their forestry and woodlands policy statement in 2013, to establish a new operationally-independent body to own and manage the estate, holding it,
“in trust for the nation.”
This commitment reflects the recommendations of the independent panel on forestry, which the Government established in 2011, under the leadership of the then Bishop of Liverpool, with a remit to advise on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England.
The Government have worked closely with partners to develop plans for the new body but it was not in the end possible to accommodate the necessary legislation within the current parliamentary programme. However, the Government remain fully committed to the objective of establishing the new public forest estate management body.
The Government have no plans to dispose of the public forest estate and the powers contained in clause 21 of the Infrastructure Bill do not present a threat to the future of the estate in public hands. The estate is not surplus, it is not owned by an arm’s length body and very little of the public forest estate would be suitable for housing development under the Homes and Communities Agency’s remit.
The Government recognise, however, the strength of people’s concerns about the future security of the public forest estate, and commit to:
Not transferring any part of the public forest estate to the Homes and Communities Agency while the land remains in its ownership; and
Not including the new public forest estate management body in any future regulations specifying which bodies can transfer land to the Homes and Communities Agency.
I hope this clear public commitment by the Government provides certainty and reassurance for noble peers and the wider public.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
In my written statement of 7 April 2014, Official Report, column 2WS, I stated that my Department had received documents which made serious allegations about poor governance and financial management at the council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I also noted that Ministers had long been concerned about a worrying pattern of divisive community politics and alleged mismanagement of public money by the mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets.
On 4 April, I appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) to carry out an inspection of the local authority’s compliance with its best value duty and to report its findings to me by 30 June 2014. On 30 June, I told the House that PwC had informed me that the council had considerably delayed the investigation by delaying the provision of key information or simply not providing it at all, and that consequently I was extending the period for PwC to report.
PwC has now completed their inspection; I am today putting a copy of its report in the Library of the House and publishing the report on my Department’s website. As statute requires, PwC is now also sending a copy of the report to the council.
I have been carefully considering the report, and later today I will make an oral statement updating the House on the action I propose to take, having regard to the report and other relevant information available to me about the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. I hope this will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to read through the detailed and comprehensive report before my oral statement.
Defence Equipment and Support
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
In my statement of 14 May 2014, Official Report, column 24WS, I outlined plans for the Defence Equipment and Support organisation (DE&S) to procure a set of specific private sector skills through contracts for managed service providers (MSPs). We made good progress on this work over the course of the summer and I can confirm that on 3 November, we made formal offers of contract to three companies. I am announcing this development today, in anticipation of a final contract award. In line with standard commercial practice, the offer of contracts triggered a stand-still period which will last for at least 10 calendar days. Subject to the successful conclusion of this period, we expect contract signature to take place on 17 November.
The MSPs are being brought in to help DE&S with its transformation programme. Unlike the approach being followed under the last year’s competition for a Government-owned contractor-operated (GoCo) entity, we are not placing contracts with the MSPs to run the DE&S business. What we need is an injection of highly specialised advice to support some specific areas of the business. The MSPs will be working alongside the DE&S work force to achieve aligned transformation goals.
The project delivery MSP contracts have an initial term of three and a half years, with the option of two one-year extensions. They will be awarded in four lots covering each of the four DE&S domains. The commercial approach was designed to allow a maximum of two of the four lots to be won by any one company, and following a rigorous competitive process, we have offered the land and joint enabler domain contracts to CH2M Hill, and the air and fleet domain contracts to Bechtel.
The project delivery MSPs will be required to provide high-quality advice in the fields of project management and project controls over a defined period. They will support DE&S in driving the necessary organisational, behavioural and cultural change designed to establish enduring improvements in project delivery approach, systems and outcomes across the organisation in support of the equipment and support plans.
The human resources MSP contract has an initial term of three years with the option of two one-year extensions. It is a single lot and has been awarded to PricewaterhouseCoopers. This MSP will be required to help DE&S establish a bespoke and business-relevant HR function and deliver the required HR transformation. It will support DE&S to attract, develop, manage and retain high-performing individuals through a new performance management, incentivisation and career management system.
The competition for the third MSP, which will cover finance, management information and information technology is planned to begin in the next few months. Sequencing the procurements in this manner will ensure maximum coherence across all three MSPs, and will allow the assessment and application of early lessons identified through the first MSP contracts.
The House will recall that when DE&S became a bespoke trading entity on 1 April this year, it secured a range of freedoms, agreed by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, to allow DE&S to manage its work force better. This included the ability to pay 25 members of staff at a rate higher than the senior salary cap; and flexibility around how DE&S recruits, rewards and manages its staff to optimise its business needs. The MSPs are not party to these freedoms, and are being brought in to the business as external contractors, procured via standard commercial practices.
The offer of these contracts represents an important milestone in the transformation of DE&S. We are moving ahead at pace, and this development underlines our firm intent both to build on recent project successes and deliver genuine and sustainable improvement to defence acquisition. Once contracts are signed, the MSPs will play an important role in this, working with DE&S to deliver the substantial change programme, which is itself designed to deliver improved value for money for taxpayers, and the best possible support for the armed forces.
Libya (Update)
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
On 11 June this year, my predecessor informed the House, Official Report, column 49WS, that the UK had started training the first tranche of Libyan recruits at Bassingbourn Camp, as part of an international commitment with other G8 nations to train a general purpose force.
The UK has been providing a challenging training programme to Libyan troops since late June. The majority of recruits have responded positively to the training despite the ongoing political uncertainty in Libya but there have been disciplinary issues.
Training was initially expected to last until the end of November but we have agreed with the Libyan Government to bring forward the training completion date. The recruits will be returning to Libya in the coming days.
The UK remains committed to supporting the Libyan Government as they work to establish stability and security across the country. The immediate priority must be agreement to a political settlement and the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Libya, Jonathan Powell, is playing an active role in support of that process.
As part of our ongoing support for the Libyan Government, we will review how best to train Libyan security forces—including whether training further tranches of recruits in the UK is the best way forward.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 13 October in Luxembourg. Richard Lochhead MSP was also present.
Fisheries
Agreement was reached on setting the TACs and quotas for the Baltic sea in 2015, established for the first time under the requirements of the reformed common fisheries policy. Preparatory discussions were also held ahead of the upcoming EU-Norway fisheries agreement negotiations, where I highlighted our priorities of North sea cod and continuation of our successful catch quota scheme. I also supported the Commission in the need to introduce further shark protection measures and follow the science in setting quotas for bluefin tuna at next month’s annual meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
The Council discussed the impact of the Russian trade restrictions on EU fisheries products. I highlighted the impact on the Scottish pelagic fishing industry with Russia making up 18% of the UK’s mackerel exports in 2013. I was successful in securing agreement from the Council to increase quota banking rates from 10% to 25% for mackerel and herring as a temporary measure. This will allow UK fishermen to carry over more of their 2014 quota until 2015, thereby providing more time to develop alternative export markets.
Under AOB Lithuania also raised its concerns about the seizing of a Lithuanian fishing vessel by the Russian authorities. Commissioner Damanaki assured Lithuania that she was giving high priority to responding to this situation.
Agriculture
Europe 2020 strategy
Member states responded to a short presidency questionnaire on the Europe 2020 strategy mid-term review. I stressed that CAP contributes to jobs and growth through pillar 2 rural development programmes where it can be used to support agricultural innovation and competitiveness.
Europe 2030 climate and energy package
EU Ministers participated in a lunch discussion on the treatment of agriculture and the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector under the 2030 climate and energy framework. I argued that we cannot have an informed discussion in the immediate term on the role of these sectors as there is insufficient data to fully assess the three options suggested by the Commission and outlined in the presidency’s paper. The Commission acknowledged that further work was required.
Agricultural trade issues
The Commission updated the Council on the progress of several trade negotiations, including the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA) and Mercosur. Several member states accepted that open, global markets were necessary but many raised concerns. Focusing on TTIP, I acknowledged that there would be some difficult discussions ahead however none appeared insurmountable and we should not overlook the benefits for all parties from a successful deal.
African swine fever
The Council endorsed a Commission proposal in response to a request from Poland and the Baltic member states to increase the EU co-financing rate to 75% for measures to combat the spread of African swine fever.
Russian ban on agriculture products from the EU
The Commission stated that it wanted to provide direct compensation to dairy producers in the Baltic member states and Finland who have been impacted the most as a result of the Russian import ban. Commissioner Ciolos, however, was unable to provide further detail but acknowledged that it may need to be funded through the crisis reserve. I accepted the principle but argued that further detail was required and we needed to consider the precedent it would set. The Commission and presidency agreed to discuss this further at the special committee on agriculture on 20 October. I, along with several other member states, rejected Polish proposals for the reintroduction of export refunds in the dairy sector and a temporary increase in the intervention price.
International Olive Oil Council
The Commission updated the Council on action it was taking to prevent the current impasse in negotiations to extend the mandate of the International Olive Oil Council, and its efforts to persuade the Turkish chair to extend the current agreement for one year.
National Pollinator Strategy
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I would like to update the House on the progress that my Department has made in developing a national pollinator strategy for England.
Bees and other insect pollinators play an essential role in our food production and are vital to the diversity of our environment. Evidence suggests that many species of our pollinators are less abundant and widespread than they were in the 1950s. Although it is difficult to be certain about the rates or the causes of change, we do know that pollinators face a wide range of environmental pressures—including intensification of land use, loss of habitat and food sources, pests and diseases, invasive species, and pesticides—and that some species are already threatened.
The Government are committed to taking action on a range of fronts to protect pollinators. The national pollinator strategy launched today, sets out a 10-year plan which commits to actions that will help protect the 1,500 or so insect species that fulfil an important pollination role in England. The strategy aims to deliver across five key areas, which are:
supporting pollinators on farmland particularly through the new countryside stewardship scheme;
supporting pollinators across towns, cities and the countryside;
enhancing the response to pest and disease risks;
raising awareness of what pollinators need to survive and thrive; and
improving the evidence on the status of pollinators and the service they provide.
Recognising that there are gaps in our understanding of the status of pollinators, the strategy provides a framework for evidence gathering action that will help improve our understanding of current trends, economic and social value, and impacts of pressures. Together with building our evidence base, the strategy outlines that there are policy actions that the Government and others can take now to protect pollinators. The strategy also reaffirms our pollinator call to action, “Bees Needs: Food and a Home”, that was launched in July this year and which provides a simple message for all land managers on the essential needs of pollinators and how to fulfil them, including five simple actions such as planting more bee-friendly flowers and cutting grass less often. Finally, the strategy includes a commitment to review and refresh the vision, aims and policy actions from 2016, as evidence emerges.
The strategy builds on current policies across DEFRA which support pollinators, including habitat and species conservation, the honey bee disease control programme, pesticides and environmental stewardship as well as initiatives and campaigns across many other organisations. Our conservation charities, beekeeping associations, scientists and many volunteers already make a vital contribution in protecting these species and the services they provide. Equally, farmers, landowners and local authorities have a central role to play in their stewardship. Many of these individuals and organisations have made important contributions to the drafting of the strategy, and we will continue to work with these partners towards producing an implementation plan over the following six months.
Given that our current understanding about the problems facing wild pollinators is patchy and incomplete, our approach to developing new policies will be iterative and adaptive. The strategy provides a framework for doing more as we find out more.
HS2 Safeguarding Consultation
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Further to my statement of 27 October, Official Report, column 7WS, in which I welcomed the key recommendations in Sir David Higgins’ report “Rebalancing Britain”, I am today announcing to the House the launch of a consultation on safeguarding directions for the western leg of HS2 phase 2 between Fradley, near Lichfield, to Crewe.
Safeguarding is an established part of the planning system in the UK. It ensures that land which has been identified for major infrastructure is protected from conflicting development. The consultation will run for nine weeks, closing on 6 January 2015.
In Sir David’s “HS2 Plus” report of March 2014 he suggested opening the line to a new hub station in Crewe in 2027, six years earlier than planned. In response I commissioned HS2 Ltd to undertake a route consideration process, informed by feedback from consultation. While a decision has yet to be made on the phase 2 route, I can inform the House that the analysis we have undertaken to date, points towards an onward connection from HS2 phase 1 through to Crewe and that it is therefore appropriate to consult on whether I should make safeguarding directions for that part of the route.
HS2 Ltd has examined hundreds of options for the whole route for the western leg of phase 2 across five criteria: constructability, sustainability, journey time, cost, and demand. HS2 Ltd has refined these options into a number of recommendations through a sifting process that balanced these different criteria. Following a careful consideration of the suggestions put forward by consultees, including those put forward by Stoke-on-Trent city council, HS2 Ltd advice is that on the analysis done so far—and there is more to do—the Crewe route looks likely to be the right route choice.
A connection from the high speed line to the west coast main line at Crewe would allow towns across the north west to benefit from HS2 with trains running direct to Crewe, Liverpool, Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Chester and Runcorn. Crewe would also permit ready access to HS2 to north Wales. HS2 Ltd’s analysis recognises the importance of serving these areas too.
Other destinations served by the proposed HS2 phase 2 route, on both the eastern and western side of the country, should be reassured that we continue to be committed to a Y-shaped HS2 network delivered as quickly as possible. Decisions on the phase 2 route will be taken when the necessary analysis has been completed, and my Department continues to carefully review the material submitted by consultees and the further work undertaken by HS2 Ltd. While we work towards finalising a route for phase 2, I cannot rule out the possibility of needing to make changes to the route including from Fradley to Crewe. But in the interests of ensuring the timely and economic delivery of phase 2, I must consider protecting that part of the route from conflicting development in the meantime. Making safeguarding directions would also trigger the entitlement for affected owner-occupiers to ask the Government to buy their property under statutory blight arrangements.
Following a decision on the route of phase 2, HS2 Ltd will undertake a more detailed design study; and safeguarding directions made following this consultation would have to be reviewed. As with safeguarding for HS2 phase 1, updates are also to be expected as greater understanding of the engineering requirements will clarify whether or not the correct land is safeguarded or whether any changes need to be made.
I am placing copies of both the phase 2 (Fradley to Crewe) safeguarding consultation and the HS2 safeguarding maps (Fradley to Crewe): general notes on draft safeguarded area documents in the Libraries of both Houses.
Grand Committee
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Deregulation Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Road traffic legislation: use of vehicles in emergency response by NHS
(1) Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemptions from speed limits), as substituted by section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006, is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit “, for ambulance purposes”;(b) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) it is being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1)(aa), “an NHS ambulance service” means—
(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.”(4) In subsection (1)(c), after “paragraph (a)” insert “, (aa)”.
(5) If this section comes into force before section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006, section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as it has effect until section 19 comes into force) is amended as follows.
(6) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) above applies in relation to a vehicle that, although not being used for ambulance purposes, is being used for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service.
(1B) In subsection (1A), “an NHS ambulance service” means—
(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.”(7) Schedule (Road traffic legislation: use of vehicles in emergency response by NHS) makes further amendments to road traffic legislation in connection with the use of vehicles in the provision of an emergency response by the NHS.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
In moving Amendment 43, I shall speak also to Amendments 44, 45, 46 and 102. The amendments make some small changes to the wording of various pieces of road traffic legislation. The aim is to enable and empower NHS ambulance services to respond to medical services and emergencies quickly and effectively. As far back as 1967, there have been statutory provisions which exempt vehicles from various rules contained in road traffic legislation when they are being used by the emergency services for fire, police and ambulance purposes. These provisions apply so that our vital services can reach an emergency in time whenever there is one. Therefore, the exemptions include matters that a member of the public could reasonably expect to be included, such as exemptions from rules relating to speed limits, traffic lights, road signs and the fitting and use of sirens and flashing lights.
The problem that we are faced with is that modern practice and technology has outgrown the current law which mainly uses the term “ambulance”. NHS ambulance services now use what are known as fast response units, including cars and motorbikes, to help provide quick response to the most critically ill patients where time is of the essence. They are also using larger vehicles to transport equipment to major incidents to ensure that clinicians are properly equipped.
These types of responses provide a vital part of NHS emergency healthcare. The definition of “ambulance” and “ambulance purposes” in a recent case concerning the use of blue lights and sirens was limited to those vehicles whose primary use is to convey the sick and disabled and did not include other vehicles such as motorbikes used by paramedics. These amendments provide certainty to NHS fast response teams that they can rely on exemptions from road traffic legislation to facilitate their speedy arrival in a crisis situation. They extend the stated exemptions to cover vehicles used,
“for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service”.
This will then cover all fast response units dispatched by the NHS ambulance services. We will have removed an unnecessary, unfair and dangerous legal block in the work of surely one of our most crucial services.
Amendments 44 and 45 to Schedule 8 are simply consequential. Since the introduction of the Deregulation Bill, some of the legislation amended by Schedule 8 has been modified by subordinate legislation made earlier this year, namely the Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014 and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“8A (1) The Transport Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 9(1)(c)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for “sub-paragraph (ia)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (ia) to (ie)”;(b) after sub-paragraph (ia) insert—“(ib) in relation to the area of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive;(ic) in relation to the area of the Greater Merseyside Combined Authority, the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive;(id) in relation to the area of the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive;(ie) in relation to the area of the Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Northumberland, South Tyneside and Sunderland Combined Authority, the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive;”.(3) In section 16(2A)—
(a) for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsection (1)”;(b) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (b);(c) after paragraph (c) insert “; and(d) the words from “including in particular” to the end of the subsection were omitted.”(4) In Schedule 5—
(a) in Part 2, in paragraph 2, after “as the case may be,”, in both places where it occurs, insert “the combined authority area or”;(b) in Part 3, in paragraph 11(a), after “integrated transport area” insert “, a combined authority area”.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Road traffic legislation: use of vehicles in emergency response by NHS Traffic Management Act 20041 The Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
2 In section 85 (prohibition of double parking etc), in subsection (3), for “for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes” substitute “—
(a) for fire brigade or police purposes, or(b) for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service.“An NHS ambulance service” means—(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.” 3 In section 86 (prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc), in subsection (4), for “for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes” substitute “—
(a) for fire brigade or police purposes, or(b) for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service. “An NHS ambulance service” means—(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.”Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 /1078)4 The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 are amended as follows.
5 In regulation 3(2) (interpretation), in the Table at the appropriate place insert—
“an NHS ambulance service | (a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.” |
(2) In paragraph (5)(a), omit “, ambulance”.
(3) After paragraph (5)(a) insert—
“(aza) used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”.7 (1) Regulation 82 (restriction on width of loads) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (10)(a), omit “, ambulance”.
(3) After paragraph (10)(a) (but before the “or”) insert—
“(aa) for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”.8 (1) Regulation 101 (parking in darkness) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)(a), omit “ambulance”.
(3) After paragraph (2)(a) insert—
“(aa) being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service if compliance with those provisions would hinder or be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion;”.9 (1) Regulation 107 (leaving motor vehicles unattended) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)(a), omit “ambulance,”.
(3) After paragraph (2)(a) (but before the “or”) insert—
“(aa) being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”.Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/1796)10 The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 are amended as follows.
11 (1) The Table in regulation 3(2) (which sets out the meaning of expressions used in the regulations) is amended as follows.
(2) In column 2, in paragraph (a) of the definition of “emergency vehicle”, omit “, ambulance”.
(3) In that definition, after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aza) a vehicle used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”. |
“An NHS ambulance service | (a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.” |
(2) Omit paragraph (2)(y)(iii).
(3) After paragraph (2)(y) insert—
“(z) reflected light from yellow or orange retro reflective material fitted to the rear of a vehicle—(i) used for ambulance purposes, or(ii) used for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service.”13 In Part 2 of Schedule 17 (requirements relating to optional side retro reflectors), in the first column of the Table, below “Ambulance” (but in the same row) insert “The provision of a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service but only in respect of a vehicle which is owned by the service or held by it under a lease or hire agreement”.
14 (1) Part 2 of Schedule 18 (requirements relating to optional rear retro reflectors) is amended as follows.
(2) The first sentence becomes paragraph 1.
(3) At the end of that paragraph insert “, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3.”
(4) The second sentence becomes paragraph 2.
(5) In that paragraph—
(a) omit “But”;(b) omit paragraph (c).(6) After paragraph 2 insert—
“3 The colour of rear retro reflectors fitted to—
(a) a vehicle used for ambulance purposes, or(b) a vehicle used for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service,may be red, yellow or orange (or any combination), provided that, in the case mentioned in paragraph (b), the vehicle is owned by the NHS ambulance service or held by it under a lease or hire agreement.”Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (S.I. 1997/2400)15 The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 are amended as follows.
16 In regulation 3(1) (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—
““an NHS ambulance service” means—(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board;”.17 (1) Regulation 12 (significance of vehicular light signals at Pelican crossings) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(e), omit “, ambulance, national blood service”.
(3) After paragraph (1)(e) insert—
“(eza) when a vehicle is being used for ambulance or national blood service purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the steady amber or the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (c) or (d) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then those sub-paragraphs shall not apply to the vehicle, and the steady amber and the red signal shall each convey the information that the vehicle may proceed beyond the stop line if the driver—(i) accords precedence to any pedestrian who is on that part of the carriageway which lies within the limits of the crossing or on a central reservation which lies between two crossings which do not form part of a system of staggered crossings; and(ii) does not proceed in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or any vehicle approaching or waiting at the crossing, or to cause the driver of any such vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;”.18 (1) Regulation 13 (significance of vehicular light signals at Puffin crossings) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(f), omit “, ambulance, national blood service”.
(3) After paragraph (1)(f) insert—
“(fa) when a vehicle is being used for ambulance or national blood service purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the amber, red or red-with-amber signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), (d) or (e) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then those sub-paragraphs shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal, red-with-amber and amber signals shall each convey the information that the vehicle may proceed beyond the stop line if the driver—(i) accords precedence to any pedestrian who is on that part of the carriageway which lies within the limits of the crossing or on a central reservation which lies between two crossings which do not form part of a system of staggered crossings; and(ii) does not proceed in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or any vehicle approaching or waiting at the crossing, or to cause the driver of any such vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;”.19 (1) Regulation 21 (stopping in controlled areas) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (c), omit “, ambulance”.
(3) After paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) when the vehicle is being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service; or”. Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002/3113)20 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 are amended as follows.
21 In regulation 4 (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—
““an NHS ambulance service” means—(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services; (b) an NHS trust established under the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 which has a function of providing ambulance services;(c) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board.”22 (1) Regulation 15 (keep right and kept left signs) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) omit “ambulance,”;(b) omit “, national blood service”.(3) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(2ZA) On an occasion where a vehicle is being used for ambulance or national blood service purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service and the observance of the requirement specified in paragraph (1) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for one of those purposes then, instead of that requirement, the requirement conveyed by the sign in question shall be that the vehicle shall not proceed beyond that sign in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person.”
23 (1) Regulation 26 (double white lines) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (5)(b), omit “ambulance,”.
(3) After paragraph (5)(b) insert—
“(bza) to a vehicle for the time being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”.24 (1) Regulation 27 (zig zag lines) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3)(c), omit “ambulance,”.
(3) After paragraph (3)(c) insert—
“(ca) when the vehicle is being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”.25 (1) Regulation 36 (light signals) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(b)—
(a) omit “ambulance,”;(b) omit “, national blood service”.(3) After paragraph (1)(b) insert—
“(bza) when a vehicle is being used for ambulance or national blood service purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signals operating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;”.26 (1) Schedule 19 (bus stop and bus stand clearways and box junctions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4 (bus stop and bus stand clearways)—
(a) in paragraph (a), omit “ambulance,”;(b) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aza) a vehicle being used for ambulance purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service;”. (3) In paragraph 9 (box junctions)—
(a) omit “ambulance,”;(b) omit “, national blood service”. (4) After paragraph 9 insert—
“10 When a vehicle is being used for ambulance or national blood service purposes or for the purpose of providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service and the observance of the prohibition in paragraph 7(1) or 8 would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then that prohibition shall not apply to the driver of the vehicle.”
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
I have a question about this new schedule. As noble Lords, including Ministers, will recognise, it is a fairly lengthy addition to the Bill. I can see entirely the argument for the exemption of emergency vehicles carrying out an essential role, and why they need to be absolved from certain legal constraints in order to carry out their duties. However, I have the anxiety that the Government have provided for all bodies related to the National Health Service and vehicles driven on their behalf, in Wales and Scotland and so on—but what about other vehicles which are driven in emergency circumstances? If, for example, an accident occurs at a football ground and a St John Ambulance immediately springs into action, because one is always present, I have no doubt at all that it would seek the help of the nearest hospital. It could well have a vehicle and be able to expedite the matter more effectively. Would the driver be breaking the law if he or she exceeded the limits in seeking to get a trauma patient to hospital as rapidly as possible in a clear emergency, similar to those to which public vehicles respond?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the amendments are designed to ensure that the definitions of “ambulance” and the way in which ambulances are used include the new vehicles that might well be used. I think that I will need to write to the noble Lord to make sure that all his points—I will look in Hansard at what he has said—are covered precisely.
I may have some assistance coming my way. These amendments relate, as at the top of Amendment 46, to emergency response by the NHS. They are to ensure that—because of case law, where there has been a particular problem with paramedic motorbikes—this is about an emergency response by the NHS. The noble Lord raises an interesting point, particularly about people going to emergencies. However, this legislation is to ensure that those who come out in response from the NHS are properly protected.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
I notice, reading the amendment rather more carefully thanks to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that paragraph 8(3) of the proposed new schedule talks about,
“a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service”.
In theory, going along the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, anybody who happened to be around with a suitable vehicle could surely be requested by the NHS ambulance service to get on with it and remove the potential patient from the football ground. The noble Lord has a point, but I think that it is covered by this amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I understand that in practice this relates to a call which would be from an NHS ambulance only. My officials have speedily passed me a note on this. One may ask why these amendments do not cover, for instance, all private organisations responding to emergencies. Our priority in this legislation is to allow NHS ambulance services to provide emergency responses. Those private organisations which have arrangements with NHS ambulance services to be dispatched by them to emergencies will be covered. Bringing other types of vehicle purposes within speed exemptions is part of a wider piece of work being carried out by the Department for Transport in relation to its commencement of Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and my noble friend for their comments which have given me the opportunity to provide clarity—I hope—on the matter.
Lord Davies of Oldham
The noble Lord has certainly clarified the matter. I only hope that if vehicles are brought into use in this way they will act with due promptness, as did the Minister’s officials in providing an answer to a rather tricky question. I apologise for not giving notice of it. However, we wanted to clarify that regular support services which are not National Health services—St John’s Ambulance is the obvious one that springs to mind—would without doubt be covered by the legislation as the Minister described it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1) A permit scheme may be prepared by—
(a) a strategic highways company,(b) a local highway authority in England, or(c) such a company or authority acting together with one or more other such companies or authorities.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in moving Amendment 47, I wish to speak to the other government amendments in this group. Part 2 of Schedule 9 removes the current requirement for the Secretary of State to approve local highway authority permit schemes. A permit scheme allows for better control of works in the street that can cause traffic disruption. That includes works in roads and pavements by utilities and authorities’ own works. The changes would remove only the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve schemes, enabling highway authorities to bring into operation their own schemes to their own timetable by council order.
Government Amendments 47 to 58 to this part are technical in nature and deal with the relationship between the Infrastructure Bill and this Bill. The Infrastructure Bill will create a new strategic highways company and will allow the new arrangements for permit schemes to apply to the strategic highways company as well as local highway authorities. In relation to Part 3 on road humps, this measure essentially removes the Secretary of State’s powers to place road humps on roads he does not control, mainly local authority roads. In practice, this has not been done for some time so this is a tidying-up measure. The powers of Welsh Ministers under this section are retained. However, there are two roads in Wales for which the Secretary of State remains the highway authority, and that is the two Severn crossings. The purpose of Amendments 59 to 61 is to ensure that the changes proposed to Section 90B of the Highways Act 1980 by Schedule 9, Part 3, do not apply to these two roads. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this is a long schedule. The Minister will be relieved to hear that we are in broad agreement with it. However, we have some difficulties because some real consequences need to be considered. Our Amendments 61A and 61B would improve the schedule by introducing further transparency into the process of issuing exemption orders. I am concerned about the extent of the Government’s powers to introduce accessibility standards for rail vehicles, established by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We, in fact, introduced the first set of rail vehicle accessibility regulations in 1998. In 2005, I and one or two other noble Lords who are present in the Room, contributed to updating that Act by making it unlawful to discriminate against disabled people using public transport or transport facilities. We introduced minimum accessibility standards for all new carriages and light rail, and placed a requirement on rail operators to develop a disabled persons protection policy.
We are obviously proud of our record in government, and are concerned that it should be continued in the amendments to the legislation that this Bill represents. All new stock must be compliant with the regulations, and all vehicles that fall under their scope will have to be compliant by 2020. However, we recognise that some heritage systems use vehicles that can never be compliant in these terms, and they deserve exemption. The Government’s proposals would remove the requirement for exemption orders to be made by statutory instrument, thereby reducing the time it takes to issue an exemption.
We appreciate the principle of reducing the time it takes to issue such an exemption, but we are concerned that the Secretary of State’s power to limit exemptions could be undermined. Our amendments seek to ensure that the Secretary of State retains full freedom to impose conditions on exemption orders, such as on length, rather than just issue blanket exemptions. The Department for Work and Pensions figures show that more than one in five people with a disability has experienced difficulty using transport and, on several occasions at Question Time, disabled Peers have indicated that they still face some transport difficulties, not least when the trains are longer than the platforms at some halts, and the train does not stop where the ramp is provided. In any case, fewer than one-fifth of rail stations have full step-free access via lifts or ramps.
The House of Commons Transport Committee suggested last year that the department involved disability organisations and charities in prioritising stations for improvements in a future “access for all” programme. Ministers dismissed the views of disabled people by saying that that those organisations’ involvement would add little value.
In the context of our amendment, as we live longer, increasing numbers of us will be living with some kind of disability. It is therefore essential to adapt the public transport system and ensure that it fits the needs of disabled people. Amendment 61B requires the Secretary of State to,
“produce a report detailing the nature”,
of any exemptions issued,
“including the conditions or restrictions made as part of that order”,
and to publicise it.
Currently there are no requirements to publish any details when exemptions are issued; only the statutory instrument itself is published. How will this shift from a statutory instrument to an administrative regime make the documents more accessible and the process more open for a wider range of UK citizens? I do not say that they will not be—I am not accusing the Government of causing a deterioration in the position—but I seek some reassurance from the Minister that this has been fully considered in this fairly lengthy amendment to the schedule.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his broad agreement on Part 7. I agree that we are dealing with some lengthy paperwork. We have made much progress in making rail vehicles more accessible to disabled people since accessibility standards were introduced in 1998—and rightly so. More than 8,100 rail vehicles now meet modern accessibility requirements, and the law requires all rail vehicles to be accessible by 2020. However, it is occasionally not appropriate, or proportionate, for those access standards to apply fully, so the Secretary of State retains the right to exempt specified vehicles from all, or parts, of them.
Originally, all such exemptions were made by statutory instrument. However, in 2008, the domestic rail vehicle accessibility regime covering mainline trains was replaced by an EU regime, whereby exemptions are issued administratively. As a result of implementation of the EU regime for mainline trains, the number of vehicles which remained within the scope of the domestic regime was reduced to just over one-quarter of those originally covered. These are the vehicles which are still subject to the use of statutory instruments for exemptions. Such vehicles include trams, underground, metro, airport people movers and even brand new vehicles for use on heritage railways. That brings the domestic regime more in line with the European regime, which the majority of vehicles are subject to, and is more proportionate than the current situation whereby, if sought, exemptions for the hundreds of trains serving Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham airport stations would be subject to an administrative process, while any for the 17 small vehicles shuttling passengers between terminals would remain subject to a process involving statutory instruments.
I highlight to the Committee the fact that the vast majority of responses from stakeholders to the Government’s public consultation were in favour of these proposals. In particular, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Government’s statutory adviser on the transport needs of disabled people, was involved as the proposals were developed and is strongly in favour of these changes. In this respect I am also pleased to note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is now of the view that these proposals have merits and finds the arguments for consistency with the European regime compelling.
The practical effect of this measure will be to shorten the period between when an application is made and the outcome is given, so reducing uncertainty for the rail industry. It will also reduce the resources required within government to handle each application. I emphasise that it will not reduce in any way the strength of argument that any applicant will need to make to justify an exemption; no exemptions will be granted in future that would not have been granted under the existing arrangements. I also assure the Committee that we will continue to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and others as necessary, on the merits of each application. The final decision on whether to grant an exemption will remain with Ministers, and the Government will continue to report annually to Parliament on the use of the exemption powers over the last year. This will allow Parliament to call Ministers to account if they feel that the powers have been used excessively or inappropriately.
Given the overwhelming support from stakeholders that this proposal received, we believe that this reform makes sense. Proceeding with this proposal will mean that applicants for exemption receive a decision sooner, so reducing uncertainty for them, and will reduce administrative burdens on government, but without lessening protection for disabled passengers, or reducing transparency on the use of exemption powers. That is why we have concerns about the noble Lord’s first amendment.
Turning to the noble Lord’s second amendment, the Government recognise that members of the public and Parliament will wish to know that the Secretary of State has used his powers to grant exemptions from the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. That is important. However, this amendment is unnecessary as transparency is already provided through two new routes, both of which will continue. First, the Equality Act 2010 already requires the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament on the use of exemption powers. The Secretary of State will continue to report annually to Parliament on those exemption powers. This will enable Parliament to call Ministers to account. Furthermore, the department already publishes on its website details of applications received for exemptions, the outcome of consultation on the merits of each application and the outcome, including the exemption order itself, if granted.
I assure the Committee that the Government’s intention is that openness must continue. Although I understand the position that the noble Lord has taken, it is for those reasons that we feel his amendments are not necessary.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Davies, decides what to do with this amendment—indeed he does not have much option in Grand Committee—would my noble friend go back to the draftsmen about the proposed new subsection (7) inserted into the Equality Bill by Schedule 9? The Bill provides that,
“such an order is as capable of being amended or revoked as an order made by statutory instrument”.
From my experience on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that a statutory instrument can amend or revoke another one and regularly does, but the way this clause is worded suggests that the statutory instrument itself can be amended. To my mind, only a super-affirmative procedure can be amended in that way. I do not expect my noble friend to answer this now, but if he could get this looked that, I would be extremely grateful.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. His experience is invaluable and I will certainly discuss this with officials so that we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Davies of Oldham
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is to be congratulated on his eagle eye. We shall see that the Minister gives a satisfactory reply. I listened carefully to the Minister and was grateful for his remarks, which were reassuring. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s acceptance of the position was enough for me, so I assure the Committee that when the time comes I will not move my amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(2) The Secretary of State may direct—
(a) a strategic highways company,(b) a local highway authority in England, or(c) such a company or authority acting together with one or more other such companies or authorities,to prepare and give effect to a permit scheme which takes such form as the Secretary of State may direct.”
“33A Implementation of permit schemes of strategic highway companies and local highway authorities in England
(1) This section applies to a permit scheme prepared in accordance with section 33(1) or (2) by—
(a) a strategic highways company,(b) a local highway authority in England, or(c) such a company or authority acting together with one or more other such companies or authorities.”
“(3A) A strategic highways company may by order vary or revoke a permit scheme to the extent that it has effect, by virtue of an order made by the company under section 33A(2), in the area in respect of which the company is appointed.
(3B) The Secretary of State may direct a strategic highways company to vary or revoke a permit scheme by an order under subsection (3A).
(3C) An order made by a strategic highways company under subsection (3A) may vary or revoke an order made by the company under section 33A(2), or an order previously made by the company under subsection (3A).”
“(b) at the appropriate place insert—““strategic highways company” means a company for the time being appointed under Part 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2014;”.”
“11A In consequence of the amendments made by paragraph 5, in the Infrastructure Act 2014, in Schedule 1, omit paragraph 144.”
“( ) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the following parts of Wales—
(a) the part of road to which section 329(5) applies;(b) the part of the M4 Motorway in Wales that comprises “the new toll plaza area” and “the new bridge”, as defined in section 39(1) of the Severn Bridges Act 1992.””
(a) (a) the part of road to which section 329(5) applies;(b) the part of the M4 Motorway in Wales that comprises “the new toll plaza area” and “the new bridge”, as defined in section 39(1) of the Severn Bridges Act 1992”
“20A In consequence of the amendments made by paragraph 15, in the Infrastructure Act 2014, in Schedule 1, omit paragraph 26.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(a) by a notice fixed to the vehicle;(b) by a notice handed to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle at the time; or(c) where the enforcement officer is prevented from serving the notice by either of the methods in paragraph (a) or (b), by post,in respect of a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area in England”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to our other amendments in this group—Amendments 61D, 61E, 61F and 61G. I will address the clause stand part debate in due course.
Most local authorities have adopted civil parking enforcement powers, which mean that they, rather than the police, can issue parking tickets for on-street parking contraventions and in local authority off-street car parks. This means that they have full responsibility for the design, implementation and enforcement of parking policies in their areas. The quid pro quo as the Government apparently see it is that local authorities should use these powers to seek best solutions to balance the sometimes competing needs of different road users, including cyclists, pedestrians, residents, shops and businesses.
Local authorities, as we know, are precluded from using their civil parking enforcement powers to raise revenue. The Government say that they are aware of concerns that some local authorities are being overzealous with parking enforcement, and they have focused on the use of CCTV as having insufficient regard to statutory guidance. It is suggested that enforcement by CCTV is particularly unfair because a motorist might be issued with a ticket as a consequence of a camera. The ticket arrives at their home some time after the event when they have no opportunity to examine the location when the alleged contravention took place. However, the Government’s consultation on local authority parking last year acknowledged the benefit of CCTV in enforcing moving traffic congestion where cars use bus lanes, do not exit box junctions and so forth.
The LGA disputes much of the Government’s analysis. It points out that successful appeals to the adjudicator are low, 80% of councils make no surplus on enforcement and parking surpluses that do arise are reinvested back into transport improvements. Parking controls help to ensure that businesses have access to loading bays, school entrances are kept clear and parking does not obstruct access to shops, businesses and residences.
Notwithstanding that, Clause 38 seeks to ban the use of CCTV for parking enforcement, although the Government have already acknowledged the need for some exemptions to this policy as a result of campaigning by the LGA. They have acknowledged the need to allow its use at bus stops, in bus lanes, outside schools and on red routes. CCTV is quite properly used to enforce parking restrictions where the use of enforcement officers is not practical. Outside schools is a particular case in point because motorists can move their vehicles when a traffic officer approaches. Enforcement in some instances requires constant observation over a period of time or for safety reasons.
As Clause 38 is currently drafted, and subject to the detail of any regulations, it would seem to make it impossible to enforce a penalty where the driver has fled the scene or where an enforcement officer is otherwise prevented from fixing the PCN to the vehicle or handing it to the person in charge of the vehicle; perhaps because of threats of violence. It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such behaviour to be rewarded. At present of course, an enforcement officer can hand a PCN to a driver or send it by post when prevented from serving it directly. Amendment 61C would therefore allow a PCN to be issued by post where it cannot be issued in the manner currently provided for in Clause 38.
Amendments 61D and 61E would include in the Bill exemptions from the ban, some of which the Government have already conceded should be provided. This applies to contraventions for stopping at bus stops and bus lanes, school entrance markings and red routes on the grounds of safety and the needs of bus services. Amendments 61B, 61F and 61G have been added to our proposals for the same reasons. We propose that all arrangements for safety reasons should be covered as well as no-stopping and no-loading restrictions because these, too, impact on bus service delays.
Amendment 61F seeks to ensure that the provisions of Clause 38 cannot have effect until the proposed implementing regulations have been the subject of a regulatory impact assessment and an equalities impact assessment. As I understand it, no impact assessments have been conducted on these clauses, particularly in respect of the impact on those dependent on public transport or on vulnerable users. Can the Minister tell the Committee why this is? Will the Government now commit to producing such assessments before implementing these provisions?
The purpose of Amendment 61G is to enable those local authorities that wish to use CCTV and automatic number plate recognition in car parks in order to make it easier for users to park and pay later or to better manage space for users. It would make it easier, for example, to have pre-booking arrangements. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provided for such technology in private car parks but not local authority ones. The use of such technology would depend on it being used for better space management or customer convenience. This approach follows the same basis as that on which the congestion charge operates and, so I am told, the new Dartford crossing toll. The Department of Health’s encouragement for NHS trusts to use pay-on-exit systems is in the same vein.
Since tabling these amendments and drafting most of these notes, we have seen a draft of the regulations enabled by this clause. We obviously need some time to look at these—although doubtless the Minister will offer some enlightenment—but on the face of things, it looks as though the prospect of enforcement by post is preserved for on-road contraventions, in limited circumstances when alternatives are prevented. These would appear to be more limited than in Amendment 61C. The regulations would also appear to cover some, if not all, of what is provided by Amendments 61D and 61E, but this is not in the Bill. The draft regulations do not address Amendment 61G.
Can the Minister help me in particular with a specific piece of drafting in those regulations? Regulation 9A(3)(c) looks at the circumstances where service of enforcement by post would be permitted. It refers to,
“where the civil enforcement officer has begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with paragraph (2)”.
What does,
“begun to prepare a penalty charge notice”,
mean in this context? Does the officer have to actually get his machine or pencil out of a bag for a written enforcement notice? Does he just have to appear and look at the number plate of the vehicle in contemplation of doing something or does he actually have to press the button on the notice? This might seem frivolous but it is important that these things are clarified otherwise the scope for argument, litigation and adjudication will be endless.
We welcome the Government’s response, so far as it goes, in listening to the concerns and the LGA’s campaign—however, it is not enough. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I believe that these provisions are ill thought through and extremely damaging to local government and local governance. At the same time as the Government are beginning to concede powers—to Greater Manchester, as we read this morning—these provisions are taking away a power which is essential for local government to keep its roads free. Those roads are becoming increasingly congested and increasingly badly maintained.
The law relating to bus operation is that the traffic commissioners who license buses provide that they do not run early or more than five minutes behind schedule. It is extremely difficult for bus operators to keep within the present limits with the present level of enforcement; it would be completely impossible if we got odd people having five minutes to pop in to get the paper and impeding the traffic. That has a large-scale effect. For example, in Oxford, which I know well, the congestion at one stage got so bad that in one of the park and rides they had to put extra buses in and extra drivers. Of course, they got no more revenue, because they were taking the same number of people, who just happened to be sitting in congested areas. I am not talking only about bus lanes; these appear to be covered in the proposed regulations. I am talking about the fact that a large number of buses do not use roads that have bus lanes; the vast majority—I think about 60%—travel along ordinary roads, which are protected in places at least by double yellow lines. I honestly believe that this is not a subject that the Government should be involved in.
There is very little evidence that surpluses are being frittered away or used by councils to subside luxuries. I accept that in Kensington and Chelsea and in Westminster a couple of councils make a profit, but we cannot argue from the particular to the general. A piece of evidence that I have from one local authority shows that actually a very small fraction of people contest their parking fines and a much smaller proportion of them are upheld by the parking adjudicator. Nobody likes getting tickets because they have been watched by CCTV but most people accept that they have done wrong and will have to pay the fine, which is mitigated to 50% if people pay promptly. It is quite impossible to think that the police have resources to do that sort of work; it has to be done by CCTV, and if local authorities can afford to employ parking wardens it is probably at the expense of spending money on something else. I cannot understand why, in this day and age, technology is not brought to bear on problems. This is not spying on people; it is picking up illegal parking that is obstructing the highway for the ordinary person.
The regulations talk about zig-zag lines outside schools. I know what they are like; they go for about 10 yards either side of the entrance. That is not the problem. If you go almost anywhere you will find a line of cars outside schools and, for that matter, outside hospitals, which is very long and creates huge safety problems. Many headmasters ask local authorities to bring the enforcement ban or some sort of TV equipment to control the problem, because many people who park in those places are just selfish or lazy—or perhaps both. I do not believe that we should pander to that sort of thing.
With this clause, we need to go back to the drawing board and take some advice from people who really know what they are talking about, not relying on something conjured up in Whitehall, probably by somebody who really does not understand the problem.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend and, in deference to my other noble friend sitting on the other side of me, I am sure that he did not mean to say that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea makes a profit from parking because it would, of course, be illegal. I am quite sure that it does not do that. I felt obliged to say that.
Before I speak to the amendment more fully, and with the permission of the Committee, I want to make a small correction to something I said in Grand Committee last Thursday—as I have been requested to do. In col. GC 452 of that Committee’s meeting, I said—or I am reported as saying—that the company, onefinestay, believed that regulation should apply to properties that are the “sole or main residence” of the owner. That is not the company’s policy, and I have agreed to put on record at the first opportunity that the position of onefinestay is that the regulation should apply to all residences, including primary and secondary residences, not simply to one sole or main residence. I have put that on record. I am certain that we will return to this subject at another date and I need say no more about that today.
I return to the thorny issue of parking. For 40 years, until last May, I represented a town centre ward in a London borough. Many, probably most, of the houses and streets in that ward were built before the motor car was invented. Pretty well all the houses there were built at a time when it was inconceivable that the people living in them would be able to afford to own and run a car, let alone two or more, in some cases. One of the consequences is that the basic problem now in what used to be my ward is that there is simply not enough road space to accommodate residents’ own cars, let alone all the other demands on the road space. As a reward for my long service on the council, during my last year there I was given political responsibility for implementing—and, I have to say, changing a little—parking policy. It encouraged me to accept retirement, and I fervently hoped last May that I would never, ever again have to deal with parking issues and parking problems. It follows that I am not entirely grateful to Mr Pickles for ensuring—sounding very much more like Friday night in the pub than anything I would hear on the streets—that I am here talking again about parking policy.
I want to make some fundamental points that I know are not widely perceived. Good parking services in most councils all over the country are there to work on behalf of the local residents and, in most cases, on behalf of motorists, too. I strongly believe that, although I understand only too well why there is a popular impression to the contrary. Having had to deal with the sort of problems that I described, I know from experience that good parking services may not provide the road space necessary to solve the problem but can go a long way to making life more tolerable for residents and manageable for non-residents who need to use those roads and streets.
As has been said—indeed, I began by saying it—local authorities are not allowed by law to make a profit from parking. With deference to my noble friend Lady Hanham, who is sitting next to me, most local authorities are unable to make the sort of income that Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea are able to make. Nor, indeed, do most councils have the sort of problems that those two authorities have to deal with. Most local authorities, including my former authority, do not make a substantial profit—or income; I shall get myself into trouble—out of parking services by the time they have covered all the expenses that are necessary. Such surplus income as may arise is, and has to be, used for transport-related actions. That is important to understand.
We come now to this clause. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made reference to the Government’s consultation on local authority parking policies which took place at the very end of last year and the early part of this year. I think I am right in saying that eight organisations, as distinct from individuals, responded to that. Six of those eight were totally opposed to the Government’s proposals. The two that were not opposed—the motoring organisations—also did not fully support the Government’s proposals, which makes me even more concerned about why the Government—my Government—are still insisting on going ahead with this measure.
As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has just said, if anything should be the responsibility of a local authority, it should surely be parking services. The local authority, and those elected to represent the local residents, best know the local circumstances and the local conditions, which vary not just from authority to authority but, frankly, from area to area, even from street to street. It is they who are in a position to determine what should and should not be done in implementing parking policy in a local authority area. Given my 40 years’ experience, I wonder why the Government are so foolish as to want to enter this minefield. For that reason, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw put down the proposal that this clause should not stand part of the Bill—that is, to delete the clause altogether. Frankly, I still think that would be the best thing that could happen. If the Government are minded to go ahead with the clause, I certainly accept that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would go some way to mitigate it. Therefore, if that is the case, I would largely support those amendments, but I still believe that it is better to leave this matter to local authorities, whose job it is to deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also said that yesterday afternoon we received a copy of the draft regulations from the Minister. I am very grateful for that and am pleased that we received it in time for this meeting, although I am sure that the Minister and noble Lords will understand that I certainly have not had time in the intervening 24 hours to have a detailed look at it or even to consult those who know far more about it than I do. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong on this because I want to be wrong, but, from my first impression, it looks to me as if the draft regulations would allow CCTV enforcement of a school clearway—the zig-zag lines—but not elsewhere. In other words, you can use a camera to enforce penalties with regard to the 10 yards round a school clearway but not a little further down the street. From my experience as a councillor with a number of primary schools located in streets such as I have described, that is simply ludicrous. Cars park all the way down the road. The residents want to have enforcement to stop cars doing that or to deal with car drivers who park inconsiderately and foolishly all the way down the road. However, if these regulations were enforced, and if I am correct—as I say, I hope that I am not—we are going to be in a position of having to tell those residents who want the local authority to enforce them, “I am sorry, we can enforce them for only 10 yards. We can’t enforce them down the rest of the road”. I am no longer a councillor, thank goodness, but I invite the Minister to explain to some of my former constituents why the regulations can be enforced for 10 yards but not for the rest of the road. That is just one point that occurs to me, which I hope the Minister will tell me I am wrong about. However, I fear that I may not be.
This illustrates the danger in the Government interfering with all this. The local authorities best know how to deal with this issue and most of them do so well. Of course, mistakes are made and silly things happen sometimes; they should not, but they do. However, we now have a very good appeals system that works fairly. Nobody has suggested that there is anything significantly wrong with that. Why do we not leave the situation as it is? For all these reasons and many more, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and I wish to give the Government the opportunity to think again and not to enter what I assure them is a minefield and an area where they simply will not win, and to leave it to the local authorities which best know their own areas to carry on dealing with the things that they have had to deal with for many years.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, I have been mentioned a couple of times by my noble friend beside me, and I am very grateful to him for explaining the policies of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea on the use of parking moneys, and why our roads are so beautifully kept. I remind the Committee at this stage of my co-presidency of London Councils and my former membership of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the fact that I was rushing down from a Select Committee and was about three minutes late for the start of the debate.
I support what has been said about this being a local authority matter. If anybody who has been involved in local government knows anything about it, there are two things that really irritate residents. The first is planning and the second is parking. How parking is controlled and enforced is totally a matter for local authorities. Noble Lords know as well as I do that Westminster City Council has completely different parking regulations to those in Kensington and Chelsea. They were very difficult to cope with to start with, but everybody has not got used to the fact that you cannot just totally rely on the same things. They have different rules of enforcement, too. Kensington and Chelsea does not employ cameras for parking enforcement, while other councils do. Whose choice is it that that should happen? Why is not that the choice of the borough—how it enforces it? If you do not have cameras, you have to put people on the streets. I came across two today, and one was on a scooter with his little yellow hat on, while one was on his bike with his little yellow hat on. They were running up and down the road. You have to have a bigger army of those to keep up enforcement if you cannot use cameras.
Where is the mischief that has brought about this proposal? Who has been complaining about cameras for parking enforcement? Cameras are used for all sorts of things in our streets, some of them extremely helpful. Some cameras catch criminals and help to protect people who are walking up and down the street. Some provide for the traffic flows. It is very annoying being caught by a camera. I can declare that I was caught by one while sitting at a box junction a little while ago. I did not know that there was a camera there, and I was a bit stuck. I got a traffic fine, and rightly so, because what I was doing was against the law. I was not doing what the law said and hoping that I would get away with it, but I did not. That is because I was breaking the law, and when people go against the law on parking arrangements brought in by local councils, which decide on the parking restrictions, it is up to the local authority to enforce it themselves. That is particularly essential for major cities, where there are really tight areas for parking, as well as in small county towns, which are different to anywhere else.
My former position as a Minister in the DCLG leaves me in no other position than to say that I do not know at all why the department has set off down this road, and it would be a frightfully good thing if it got away from it.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I am not an ex-councillor. I am not sure that it is a misfortune or fortune still to be an elected member of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. My ward has in it two large upper schools and a very large primary school. Because of the topography and the nature of the communities of Bradford, which noble Lords will know is a very large area, many children, however large or small, are brought by parents in cars. The ensuing chaos is something that you cannot believe. Not only is it chaotic and dangerous; it is also detrimental to economic growth in the area. When cars cause obstacles to vehicles passing through a community, it delays important business traffic and people choose not to open businesses in places where they cannot get quickly to their destination. If councils do not have the opportunity to use everything possible to control unsightly, difficult and inconsiderate parking, we will have even more chaos.
I could not agree more with all my colleagues on the Benches in front of me: it really should be a matter for local authorities to determine how this is dealt with, certainly not somebody who thinks that a zig-zag line outside a school is the only place where there is a problem. We even have situations, because of inconsiderate parking, in which emergency vehicles cannot get through at school times. This is therefore a step too far, which the Government should not be considering.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being a minute late. I thought that we wanted freedom for local authorities—I just do not understand this. If local authorities cannot handle their parking, what on earth are they supposed to handle? I am sorry, but it seems to me to be manifest. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is wrong in both its planning and its parking proposals. Westminster is better at both. I live in Westminster, thank goodness—I do not live in it for that reason, but I thank God for the fact that I live there.
I want to have a local councillor to whom I can talk about the planning in my street. I do not want him coming back and saying, “I am frightfully sorry. The Government have decided we shan’t have this”. It is wholly contrary to the Localism Act we have recently passed. I thought that we were going to do more of that. We are going to give a great deal of power to Manchester. I am very much in favour of that; I hope that we do the same for Sheffield and all the great cities of Britain. I want all that. A fat lot of good it is giving them a hand and then suddenly saying, “You can’t have the parking; we’re going to do it differently”.
This is manifestly not to do with government policy. It is contrary to government policy, and if it is contrary to government policy, would it not be better not to have it? Then everyone would understand that government policy is for localisation and not for telling people that they cannot decide how the parking shall work out in Queen Anne’s Gate. I want to be able to say directly to somebody, “This does not work. Can we do it this way?”. I cannot do that to the Minister—unless he would like us all to come and see him, with every planning problem from around the country. That is the only alternative to what is being proposed here.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, irrespective of the arguments made on my right and behind me, I have a slightly different problem with the clause. The Bill has been touted by the Government as the great deregulation measure of this Parliament. I am all for deregulation, but this ain’t it. It is a regulation measure. Why on earth is it in the Bill in the first place?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his amendment, and all who spoke in this debate. I think the word “minefield” was used by one of my noble friends; there may be some more extreme language.
I will explain why Clause 38 is, in the Government’s view, important. New Section 78A to be inserted in the Traffic Management Act 2004 will allow for regulations to be made, the effect of which will prevent local authorities from issuing parking tickets in the post based solely on the evidence of CCTV cameras. Once the regulations are in place, traffic wardens will need either to affix tickets physically to the vehicle, or hand the ticket to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, so that drivers are made aware of an alleged parking contravention at the time. This might be an appropriate time to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about what the phrase,
“begun to prepare a ticket”,
means. My understanding is that it is the point at which the traffic warden begins to prepare the ticket in a physical sense. I hope that that is helpful; that is my understanding of the matter.
The Government accept that sole reliance on CCTV evidence in enforcing on-street parking regulations is suitable in certain circumstances, and will therefore set out in secondary legislation four exemptions where CCTV will continue to be used: bus lanes, bus stops, red routes and around schools. My noble friend Lord Tope mentioned this in particular about schools. I can well understand this because I have had direct experience of it in the past 10 days. Noble Lords of a political persuasion may have gone down to Rochester. I was there in a street that had a school, and one of the issues that was raised was parking.
The description in the draft regulations of what constitutes “around schools” follows that used elsewhere in DfT legislation. There is nothing to prevent local authorities using traffic wardens to enforce in other areas. I should, however, like to look into that in a little bit more detail.
Lord Tope
I should be grateful if my noble friend would look into it. With deference to my noble friend the former leader of Kensington and Chelsea, most local authorities do not have the income from parking that enables them to employ large numbers—I think she referred to armies—of traffic enforcement officers. It is simply not practical to put civil enforcement officers—I think that they are called parking attendants now—outside every primary school throughout that local authority area where there is a parking problem. I am sorry to say that the Minister confirmed my understanding from a quick read of the regulations, that a camera can be used for 10 yards outside the school but if you go further than 10 yards you have got to employ a human being at consequent cost for enforcement. That simply will not happen in most areas. There is neither the money nor the demand to do it. Frankly, it is ludicrous.
Therefore I thank the Minister for his willingness—even, I suspect, his enthusiasm—to look into this and to have it resolved before we get to the next stage of the Bill. I am not sure that he has already noted that by far the strongest opposition to this clause has come from his own side.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am fast becoming aware of that. I do not want to provoke my noble friends, but since local authorities took on responsibility for parking enforcement the income from parking has gone up significantly. Local authority surpluses from parking income have more than doubled from £223 million to £512 million between 1997 and 2010. There are obviously some local authorities that are increasing surpluses—clearly not the local authorities with which my noble friends have been associated or which they may know. I pass those figures on as a matter of record.
The Government believe that these proposals are necessary as a matter of principle. People should be able to see what they are accused of when they return to their vehicle, so that they have the opportunity to examine the area for themselves. It is not reasonable for drivers to receive a ticket in the post up to two weeks after the incident has taken place.
The Government also believe that some local authorities are ignoring operational guidance and using CCTVs in areas in which they should not do so. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal told the Transport Select Committee that adjudicators have found cases where camera enforcement is used as a matter of routine where the strict requirements for use in the guidance do not appear to be present. By bringing forward this legislation the Government are seeking to ensure that parking practices are fairer for people.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
What is the difference between getting a ticket through the post as a result of camera activity two weeks after the event and getting a ticket in the post as a result of camera activity two weeks after the event when you are whizzing up the M40 and there has been a police car on one of the bridges?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, used the word “whizzing”. I am not sure that anyone could start placing the ticket on a vehicle going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway. However, I take his point more seriously than perhaps is suggested by making that instant judgment as to why it would not be possible to adhere to these principles for someone going at 80 or 90 miles an hour on the motorway.
Lord Deben
Does this not give my noble friend the opportunity to go back to the department to explain why there is unhappiness? It was said that the reason why you cannot affix the notice is that the car is travelling too fast, but there are other reasons, too. In the part of the country from which we both come, a village school may have real problems with people parking in the wrong places. The ideal answer in that distant place, where it is difficult to have someone on duty all the time, may be to have a camera. The idea that Suffolk Coastal District Council or Mid Suffolk District Council is capable of having people standing outside every village school—and many of them have this problem—is not sensible. Is that not the same sort of issue as dealing with people travelling at 60 or 80 miles per hour? There is no other way of doing it, but we have to do it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend is always extremely persuasive. Clearly, the record of these discussions will go back to the department.
In his amendments, the noble Lord seeks to place in the Bill the list of exempted areas where local authorities can continue to use CCTV to issue tickets in the post. The department does not think that it would be expedient to set the exemptions in primary legislation. It is conceivable that exemptions could be increased or reduced in the future, so it might be more desirable to include them in secondary legislation. Everyone will have their own view on what is the right balance for the use of CCTV, whether that is in parking, as your Lordships are debating today, or more widely. The Government have given careful consideration to the list of exemptions and, in particular, have reflected the views of those who responded to the consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also seeks to introduce a requirement for impact assessments to be carried out for the provisions. As I am sure he will know, the Government have been clear in their determination to reduce the impact of rules and regulations on businesses and policymakers. Indeed, the Government’s Better Regulation Framework Manual, which was published in July 2013, states that impact assessments are required only for measures that regulate or deregulate business or concern the regulation of business. This clause applies only to local authorities that carry out parking enforcement, so we believe that no impact assessment is required.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister remind me what the criteria are for an equality impact assessment?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think that I might need a little assistance on that, but I will return to it.
The noble Lord also suggested the insertion of a new clause that would prevent the measures in the Bill from affecting off-street parking. However, the measures in the Bill already apply only to on-street parking, so we consider that the noble Lord’s suggested new clause is not necessary.
I should also reply to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw on the issue of traffic flow. Local authorities will still be able to enforce parking. Indeed, the great majority of authorities do this without the use of CCTV. As I said, in those areas where traffic flow is vital, the Government have provided for CCTV to continue.
I promise to write to the noble Lord about equality impact assessments.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall first pick up some points that the Minister made. I understand his definition of when someone begins to prepare a parking ticket. I suspect that CCTV evidence will need to be brought to bear on that decision on more than a few occasions.
Let me revert to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who said that the amendment was damaging to local government and took powers away from local authorities. With respect, that is not what the amendment was doing. What is taking the power away from local authorities is the clause in the Bill. The amendment was seeking to ameliorate the impact of that. In that sense, I guess that it is a middle position between the two extremes of the coalition—those who do not want the clause at all and those who, if it has to be there, want to make it work in a better way. The arguments for not having it there at all are not insignificant.
Lord Bradshaw
I am sorry to interrupt. There is a woeful lack of solid evidence to support what the Government are proposing. The Minister, in replying, referred to parking penalty charge notices and all the work given to the adjudicators. In one borough, which I shall not name, 45,771 tickets were issued in a year. Of those, 358 were referred to the parking adjudicator and 65 were upheld. So we are talking about 65—one and a half a week—against the local authority issuing nearly 1,000 a week. It is preposterous that this sort of evidence is used by the Government to make these proposals. I beg the Minister to go away and convene a meeting between the people who support the Bill and those who actually have to work it. Seriously, this will cause chaos to bus services and parking enforcement—and probably a general feeling, once again, that the Government are out of touch with people.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I do not at all dispute the adjudication figures. I probably used the same briefing as the noble Lord. We have a common understanding of the data and the Government have more to do in justifying what they are doing here.
The issue around schools is clearly very important. The point has been well made that it is nonsense to say that TV cameras will be able to be used along a very short stretch of road. Our amendment would widen or retain the opportunity to use CCTV in those circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked who was complaining about parking charges. I hesitate to say, but she might wish to take a taxi ride in Luton and it will not be long before she gets someone bending her ear about parking charges and enforcement. I suspect that that situation is not unique to where I live.
There is a localism argument in all this, although I know that depending on where people are on a proposition, they either grasp the localism mantra or they do not. We debated something just last week when those who are now on the localist wing were arguing for a very much centralist approach. We have all probably been on one side of that issue or another.
The Minister said that I was trying to introduce a new clause related to off-street parking enforcement; was that the point he was making? The point about Amendment 61G, which was suggested to us by the LGA, related to the opportunity for local authority car parks to have the benefit of the same use of technology as private car parks so that it can be used to improve management of those car parks—to enable people to park and pay afterwards, for example. Those are the sort of arrangements that make more efficient use of car parks—as I said, the Department of Health hospital trusts are encouraging that—which was the purpose of my clause. Perhaps the Minister might reflect on that.
My noble friend Lord Rooker, as ever, made a challenging point, in this case about the difference between somebody getting done for speeding on a motorway and somebody getting a parking ticket when they are stationary. These provisions apply only for stationary vehicles—for obvious reasons which the Minister I think dealt with. If people are motoring at 40, 50 or 60 miles an hour, you need some form of evidence to be able to justify a penalty, and CCTV is the obvious option. I do not think that the Government, to be fair to them, are seeking to change that in these regulations. But where I challenge the Government, and where I would certainly align myself with most of the Benches opposite, is that I do not think the Government have justified the very narrow use of CCTV that would result from this clause. At the very least it should be widened to cover all of those areas focused on safety, for example bus usage and the efficiency of the bus service. What they are doing is very restrictive and, I believe, unacceptable. One way or another, it needs to change.
Lord Tope
I do not think the noble Lord has quite withdrawn his amendment yet. Before he does so, I could perhaps help with Amendment 61G—which I certainly support—which refers to the use of an approved device in car parks. As I understand it, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provided for the use of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition in private car parks but did not do so for local authority car parks. If that is the case—I believe that it is, and that is the reason for the amendment—I do not understand the logic for it. Why is it permissible in a privately owned or managed car park but not in a local authority one? I suspect, or would like to believe, that that was simply an omission when the 2012 Act was passed and that this is the opportunity to correct it.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support on that particular amendment. I do not believe we can get an answer this afternoon as to why that distinction was made when the provisions were introduced but it is certainly important that we get it. We will obviously need a lot of follow-up on this area of debate, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prohibition of parking on verges, central reservations and footways
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 19 insert—
“19A Parking on a road anywhere other than on the carriageway
(1) A person who parks a vehicle wholly or partly—
(a) on the verge of an urban road,(b) on a footway comprised of an urban road, or(c) on any other part of an urban road other than on the carriageway,is guilty of a civil offence, subject to the provisions of subsection (3).(2) An offence under this section shall be treated as a traffic contravention for the purposes of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and regulations made under it.
(3) Subject to subsection (6), a highway authority may by resolution, or in the case of the Secretary of State by such notice as appears to him to be appropriate, authorise, from a date specified in the resolution or notice, the parking of vehicles on or over a footway or any part of a footway as referred to in subsection (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any road within Greater London.
(5) In this section—
“carriageway” and “footway” have the same meanings as in the Highways Act 1980;
“urban road” means a road which—
(a) is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1980;(b) is subject to an order under section 84 of that Act imposing a speed limit not exceeding 40 miles per hour which is imposed by or under any local Act; or(c) is subject to a speed limit not exceeding 40 miles per hour which is imposed by or under any local Act;“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by, or to be attached to, a mechanically propelled vehicle but does not include a heavy commercial vehicle within the meaning of section 19 of this Act.
(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to any exemptions from the prohibition contained in subsection (1).
(3) The Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(4) In Schedule 7, after paragraph 4(2)(g) insert—
“(ga) an offence under section 19A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (parking on a road anywhere other than on the carriageway);”.”
Lord Tope
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, although it is not shown here. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, is in another meeting in your Lordships’ House and is unable to be here today. He has asked me to move this amendment, which stands in his name, and I am of course very happy to do so; first, because I have some experience of the issue but secondly because the amendment repeats very closely the wording of the Private Member’s Bill introduced by my honourable friend Martin Horwood in the other place, which is supported by all parties including Plaid Cymru and the Greens. I am very pleased to be able to move it.
On the last amendment, I rehearsed at some length my experience of parking in a London borough and the nature of the ward that I represented in that borough. Coincidentally, the year of my election was the year that Greater London acquired the power to ban pavement parking—for simplicity’s sake in this discussion, I will simply refer to pavement parking, because that is the way it is most easily understood and that is what it is about. As a result, pavement parking has been illegal for some years now throughout Greater London except where a street is specifically exempted from that ban.
I believe, certainly, in my own borough—a number of roads in what used to be my ward had to be so exempted, or nobody would have moved in them—the exemptions are strictly controlled. Nearly all of the rest of the country is not in that fortunate position. Although Exeter and Worcester have bans, the rest do not. It is an inconsistent situation throughout the country. One of the purposes of the amendment and my honourable friend’s Private Member’s Bill is to deal with that inconsistency.
The need for the ban is, I am sure, obvious to all of us here, not just for consistency but because parking on pavements is extremely dangerous to many people: very obviously to people who are blind or partially sighted, to people who have a mobility difficulty whether they are using a wheelchair or not and to people pushing prams and pushchairs. Indeed, I would say that it is dangerous to every pedestrian who is forced into the road. That is the primary reason why we should now take this opportunity to introduce a pavement parking ban on a consistent basis throughout the rest of the country outside London, within which it already exists.
The campaign for a pavement parking ban has the support of 20 organisations: Guide Dogs for the blind, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Campaign for Better Transport, Age UK, Living Streets, the National Association of Local Councils, Whizz-Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Sense, Civic Voice, the Design Council, Keep Britain Tidy, Transport for All, the Thomas Pocklington Trust, the Macular Society, the Glass-House, the National Pensioners Convention, the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners and Deafblind UK. I hope that the Minister’s experience in trying to deal with Clause 38 just now would suggest to him that it might be as well to give in and accept the amendment, or one very like it, now.
The amendment is long overdue. The primary reason is what I have already said: the dangerous nature of parking on pavements for pedestrians; particularly for those I have described, but quite seriously for all pedestrians—although clearly much more so for some than for others. I have a local authority background; indeed, maybe I should declare again my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. Another reason is the cost of pavement parking. Parking on pavements breaks up the pavements, which are not built or designed to have people parking on them. It adds a considerable cost to local authorities having to repair them. Increasingly, I am sorry to say, budget restraints mean that those pavements do not get repaired, so even walking on the pavement can now be quite difficult and dangerous.
This campaign is supported by the overwhelming majority of local authorities for the reasons I have said and the need to get consistency. Current laws and practice around the country are simply not consistent. We therefore need a new law, long overdue, that, although it is quite a complex issue, makes it clear in simple terms that parking on pavements is not just wrong—it is, or should be, illegal. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I feel sorry for the Minister. The previous speaker, having earlier fought hard for localism is now trying to take localism away. I am happy to have this as giving a power, but the idea that the Government should tell every local authority, whether it is suitable or not, that they cannot allow parking on pavements seems to me to be a mistake. There are places where parking on the pavements is a sensible answer—indeed, the only answer. Now, it may be a choice between two evils, but it is a choice that should be made locally. We either have to believe in localism or not. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will accept that we should give this power, but that it should be permissive and should not be national.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I do not want to argue with my noble friend about which of us is the greater localist. We have known each other for more than 40 years. I thought that I made clear that it would obviously have to be the case, as it is in London, that where necessary and appropriate, and as decided by the local authority, the pavement concerned could be exempted from that ban. It is clearly not just desirable but essential.
If the amendment were approved, it would simply change the situation now, where parking on pavements is okay unless it has been stopped, to the reverse situation where it is not okay unless the local authority has specifically exempted it. My noble friend used the example in the previous debate of a vehicle travelling at 60 miles an hour down the motorway. Maybe we should not talk about motorways but is he seriously suggesting that local authorities alone should decide which area has a speed restriction and that the situation in the country should be that there are no speed restrictions in place unless the local authority chooses to impose one? That would be anarchy and simply would not work. We are going to have a dialogue if we are not careful.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I do not intend to have any dialogue at all, but I would just point out that it is the local authority that decides where a 30 mile an hour limit should be. Many of them overdo it and that is a pity, but I put up with that. It is their right. I am merely saying that I do not think that the clause as drafted would have the most local effect. I would prefer the clause to give powers. I want powers to be given and then people can make up their own minds. That is not what this clause does and I am sure that it could be done in such a way as to satisfy both of us. There is not much point in us having a dialogue, but can we please have a local solution?
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
I think we may be about to have a dialogue. I used to be a councillor in Cambridge and we spent a lot of time stopping people driving over 30 miles an hour because of Mr Toad characters who wanted to go at 40 miles an hour.
If we go too far down this road we would have to have a little leaflet about every town that we visit about parking on the pavement or not parking on the pavement. In the country as a whole, we need to have some broad rules. If a city does not allow you to park on the pavement, that should be stated very clearly as you enter the city. It is very important to have broad rules in a country, otherwise we begin to be like countries several hundred years ago when every city had different rules. We should have a broad rule and then local authorities should have the power to exempt, but there needs to be some information.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and already spoken to. I feel nervous about standing between two noble friends. Luckily, I am not right between them, so I feel safe at the end of the Table. Also, it is a pleasure to be speaking to my noble friend the Minister. Two hours ago we were speaking on sport and now we are on parking. We should all bow down in awe at the extent of his knowledge and the range of expertise demonstrated in just one afternoon.
We all know very well that there are three subjects never to be discussed in polite conversation. I would certainly add a fourth, parking, to that. It raises temperatures—sometimes justifiably and sometimes the solution is actually in the hands of the person holding the steering wheel at that particular moment. Looking at the amendment, the situation is clearly set out and has worked not just perfectly but incredibly well in London since 1974. It has not impacted on the economic, social or cultural success of this great city. I would never say that what is good enough in London is good enough everywhere, but it is a very useful case in point to consider.
As a guide dog user, I obviously have a particular interest in this. In many cities and towns that I go to, trying to walk along the pavement is impossible. One steps out to avoid one car then realises that there is a second, third and fourth car and one is walking down the centre of the road while the cars are on the pavement. What a curious world one has entered there. It is almost as if pink flamingos are used as mallets for croquet and we are all diving down rabbit holes when we have reached a change of roles to that extent.
It is not just about visually impaired people, though—it is about the very nature and essence of inclusion. If you have a pushchair or pram, or you are walking with friends or family, if you have toddlers or if you are on a mobility scooter, if you are a pedestrian you should be able to access and enjoy the environment on the pavement. The clue is really in the name, “pavement”; it is not a carriageway. The Americans get it quite well—it is a sidewalk, not a side road or a side car park. That is where we should aim to guarantee everybody free, unimpeded access along the pavements, not just of London but across the entire nation. As we have already heard, there is a very clear local element here. Politics is nothing if it not only listens but acts locally. This amendment offers the right local solution to enable unimpeded access of the pavements up and down this nation.
I turn to the economics of it. Pavements are not designed for cars. Unsurprisingly, they crack and the tarmac sinks and they become not only unsightly but dangerous for pedestrians. Between 2006 and 2010, £1 billion was spent on pavement repairs as a result of parking. That figure does not even cover the costs that we can all only think about of people who have had to bring claims against local authorities for having been injured on pavements that have broken down as a result of people parking on them. Again with reference to the local agenda, that is why it is hardly surprising that 78% of local councillors believe that there should be prevention of pavement parking, as is the case in Greater London.
There is an economic argument and a social argument, as well as a legal argument. It would be good if my noble friend could strongly consider the wording set out in this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is an important amendment, and we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we all signed up to the Private Member’s Bill, which has stalled at the other end but is due for a Second Reading in January.
Under the existing legislation, it is illegal to drive on pavements and footpaths, but there is no specific prohibition against pavement parking. The ambiguity in the law means that most local authorities struggle to enforce restrictions, in contrast to London, which has operated a separate system since 1974. I understand that there are also exemptions in place in Exeter and Worcester. As the campaigning charity, Living Streets, said in written evidence to the Transport Select Committee:
“Inconsiderate parking can cause a major barrier to many vulnerable road users. It is clear that the current legislative situation relying on police enforcement isn’t working”.
Of course, there are some areas where parking on the pavement is unavoidable, and there are other legitimate reasons why it might sometimes be necessary—but all too often parking on the pavement obstructs access to pedestrians, forcing them to navigate busy and dangerous roads instead. Some 74% of adults report being forced to walk on the road because the pavement was being obstructed by cars and other vehicles. For some, pavement parking can effectively extinguish their right of way altogether. I refer to elderly people, people with buggies and those with disabilities. For them, cars that block the pavement can be a serious restriction on their freedom of movement.
I know that the measure proposed today has the support of the Guide Dogs UK, Age UK and several other organisations referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Banks of parked cars can also force cyclists to swerve into dangerous traffic flows, which can be especially dangerous on narrow roads. Pavements are not designed to bear the weight of cars, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, just said, let alone heavier goods vehicles; over time, they can become degraded, posing additional challenges for pedestrians and costs for local authorities.
The reality of the problem is not in contention, I suggest. In 2006, the Transport Select Committee said that the then Government,
“must grip the problem of pavement parking once and for all and ensure that it is outlawed throughout the country … rather than relying on the use of individual Traffic Regulation Orders on specific streets and local Acts to impose”,
a fine. Last year, the Transport Select Committee called for reform to end,
“a confusing patchwork approach across the country”,
and for a clarification of the rules for loading and unloading by haulage companies, and action to rectify the long-standing problems over poor signage. It is important that, even as the Government try to move towards allowing more diverse road signs from local authorities, common national standards can be agreed on this issue.
The status quo brings challenges for drivers as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The British Parking Association and the RAC Foundation all support the calls for change. Inappropriately parking vehicles can interfere with traffic flows for other road users, causing jams and congestion, and drivers are often unsure about restrictions—and which, if any, are in place. Given the growth in congestion on many of our roads, these problems are likely to be magnified in the years ahead.
The Government also seem to be in agreement, on the principle at least, that pavement parking is a problem that needs to be addressed. The amendment gives the Minister and the Government ample opportunity to do so. I urge them to take it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for speaking to the amendment; I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for tabling it.
The Government recognise entirely the importance of making the local environment convenient, safe and attractive to walk in, and of keeping footways in good order. I do not think anyone could have failed to be struck by all that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has said. However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged, part of the dilemma is that there are indeed some streets where pavement parking may be inevitable, whether to maintain free passage of traffic, to allow loading and unloading or to allow the setting down of passengers in certain situations. I am afraid that I can think of instances when I have parked on a pavement for an elderly relative to get out safely, which I think was legitimate; it was not in London, either. There are therefore issues with a blanket ban, as the amendment is drafted, that are problematic.
Local authorities already have many powers to ban pavement parking; I have a list of them and they are quite considerable. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben on this occasion. Local authorities are in the best position to decide on local parking restrictions and need to consider all road users when taking such decisions. A national ban of the type proposed would require local authorities to remove all existing restrictions, then to review their urban areas for where footway parking should nevertheless still be permitted, consult the community and erect new signage and markings, which would of course impose a burden on local government.
The amendment also proposes banning footway parking but allowing authorities to permit it where desired by a simple resolution. Circumvention of the traffic regulation order process would take away an important protection for the public. This process requires authorities to undertake consultation and advertise the proposals before councillors take final decisions. The Government’s guidance to local authorities makes clear that, during the appraisal of their parking policies, an authority should consider whether pavement parking is problematic in any part of its area. If it is, and is not covered by an existing traffic regulation order, the authority should consider amending the existing order or making a new one. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Kramer wrote to all English traffic authorities on 27 June this year to remind them of their existing, wide-ranging powers to prevent people from parking on the pavement where it is a problem.
Given the significant issues in managing a change of this scale, and the fact that authorities already have comprehensive powers to ban footway parking, I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. However, before that, I want to emphasise that I am not asking the noble Lord to do that because the Government do not understand or accept the concerns that have been expressed. Indeed, the Government consulted the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on this. Although that body favours having no parking on the footway, it recognised that there would need to be exemptions from the national ban and that issues arise from this.
Although I am sure all noble Lords in the Committee will have every sympathy for what is intended, there are issues, which is why I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tope
My Lords, as we are in Grand Committee, the rules ensure that I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment, which I will of course do in a moment. I am grateful to the Minister for expressing sympathy and understanding, but what the 20 organisations and thousands and thousands of other parties—including a majority of councils and councillors—are looking for is not sympathy but action.
I accept entirely that it is complex but I just remind noble Lords that it was introduced in Greater London in 1974—coincidentally, the year in which I first became a councillor for the ward that I have already described, which has a number of streets that have to be exempted from the ban for practical and physical reasons. When a road or pavement is exempted, it is marked accordingly on the pavement and with a prescribed street sign, so that everybody knows that it is exempted and the extent of the exemption. The important point that we are trying to get across here is that in Greater London parking on pavements is illegal unless exempted, and that should be the situation in the rest of the country. People will then know where they stand: it will be illegal unless there is a sign and marking on the pavement that says it has been exempted. The local authority will deal with those exemptions and will have drawn up and published criteria for dealing with them, so it will be publicised in that way.
I do not want to provoke him again by saying this, but I do not think that my noble friend Lord Deben and I are that far apart. All I would say is that we have over 40 years of experience and practice in dealing with these issues in Greater London, which is arguably one of most densely populated urban areas in the country, and it works reasonably well. There is always an issue of enforcement, but there is something there to enforce. So what I and, in particular, the supporters and campaigners on this issue seek from the Government is rather more than sympathy or understanding, or leaving the situation, which is widely recognised as cumbersome and inadequate, as it is. We are looking for them to actually take action and to say to people that parking on pavements is illegal unless it is exempted.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Would the noble Lord not agree that it is pretty clear in the Highway Code that you do not park on the pavement? As I understand this legislation, with the new Highway Code you had better ring up your council to see whether you can park on the pavement.
Lord Tope
It is certainly in the Highway Code and is certainly good practice, but it is not illegal outside London. That is the point that we are making. I am sure that we will return to this debate, both on this Bill and when my honourable friend gets the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill, but in the mean time I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rooker
Lord Rooker
My Lords, having noticed that my noble friend Lord Prescott is in his place I shall make my speech shorter than it would otherwise have been, since his expertise in respect of this issue both as a Minister and of course in his previous life is far greater than anything that I can contribute. At Second Reading on 7 July, I mentioned that the Joint Committee that I had the privilege of chairing and that looked at the draft Bill a year ago did not take any evidence on the clause relating to marine accident investigations, so there is no comment in the Joint Committee’s report about the issue. I also said on Second Reading at col. 30 that I thought that we should take a look at it more closely as it goes through this House. I said that in relation to two or three other issues as well. We had hundreds of submissions on a Bill that had 65 clauses at that time—this Bill has 91—so we could not do everything in the time allowed. There were one or two issues on which I thought Parliament should spend some time because it had not done so and it is important that the legislation is scrutinised.
I have gone back to look. Although the Joint Committee did not take any evidence on marine accidents, so far as I can check from the full list on the web it did receive three items of written evidence. One was from the UK Chamber of Shipping. I freely admit that, because the Joint Committee did not go into this in detail, this is the first time that I have read what the UK Chamber of Shipping wrote and I have not done lots of research on this. The UK Chamber of Shipping supported the logic of the change proposed. It pointed out that these changes were outlined in Marine Guidance Note 458 issued in 2012 and no concerns had been raised. There were a lot of red tape challenge issues relating to marine matters that I am not going to go into in great detail. The reference for the UK Chamber of Shipping written evidence is DDB0206. It is on the website.
Nautilus International also sent in written evidence, reference DDB0266, relating to what was then Clause 25 in the draft Bill. I am not going to go into great detail about this. Nautilus International is the union for maritime professionals. It certainly raised matters that ought to be considered. I do not think that it was wholly in support of the amendment as it was drafted. It,
“respectfully pointed out that in the case of the loss of the MV “Derbyshire”, that the technological advancement had been such that it was possible to locate the wreck and to ascertain more accurately its true loss and”—
I have no doubt that my noble friend will raise this—
“so as to bring about changes in the rules of construction that subsequently could save unnecessary burden and expenditure upon the industry”.
Therefore it is an important issue for relatives. It also said,
“it would seem pointless in removing this flexibility from the Secretary of State”—
about a second inquiry—
“that could be extremely beneficial in both allaying public anxiety following a marine incident and addressing the concerns of those directly or indirectly involved”.
The third piece of written evidence, reference DDB0294, was from RMT. It made clear that it strongly opposed the proposal in what was Clause 25. I am not going to go into detail about that because I am going to use part of the RMT brief now.
There were those three bits of evidence and it is important to put this on the record. The evidence was provided, the Joint Committee did not seek any further particulars, and we did not go into any detail regarding the Bill. The matter was raised during the passage of the Bill, which I am pleased about. It was raised while the Bill went through the House of Commons. Last week I apologised straightaway because I had been grossly misinformed about an issue we dealt with last week that I said had not been dealt with in the Commons, but it had been. In this case, the issue certainly was dealt with in the Commons. That is quite important. The issue was dealt with at Second Reading on 3 February and then in Committee on 11 March.
I want to make a couple of general points because the answer from the Government on 11 March from the Solicitor-General appeared to hinge on two key arguments. First, that it would remain mandatory to reopen the formal investigation if there are grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice. Secondly, removing the duty to reopen will,
“facilitate the more efficient administration of reopened formal inquiries without compromising marine safety”.—[Official Report, Commons Deregulation Bill Committee; 11/3/14; col. 306.]
The RMT’s latest briefing turned up on the internet. I am privileged to have seen this amendment, which I thought was worth raising. I have now come to the conclusion that the clause should not remain in the Bill, but if it does it should be amended. The RMT’s point about the miscarriage of justice is that:
“The Secretary of State’s power in the 1995 Act (269(1)(b)) … to re-open an accident investigation if he/she suspects that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred is retained but we remain concerned that this places the bar too high in such instances and will further deter trade unions, NGOs and others from conducting the sort of campaign that led to the re-opening of the MV Derbyshire investigation and eventually secured justice for the families of those who died at sea working on a UK flagged vessel. We are clear that a duty to reopen an investigation in the circumstances set out here is far safer than the power to re-open on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice”.
So it takes issue with the central plank of the Government’s argument that they have got it right in the Bill.
The second point the Minister made related to the administration of marine accident inquiries. The RMT now says, having considered all these issues, that:
“This line of argument is consistent with that made by the Chamber of Shipping in support of abolishing the Duty. The argument goes that removing the Duty is just a bit of ‘tidying’ to bring the Merchant Shipping Act into line with recently revised guidance … on marine accidents and investigations. RMT continues to reject this line of argument for the following reasons, none of which were satisfactorily answered by the Minister … in Committee”.
I am giving the Minister plenty of warning now about the answers we want today.
As the Government acknowledged in Committee in the Commons, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is not an enforcement or prosecuting body. Its role is restricted to establishing the causes and circumstances of an accident in the aftermath partly to prevent future accidents. The duty to reopen investigations under the 1995 Act therefore remains an important statutory safeguard over the longer term if the initial accident investigation board investigation is found to be lacking.
Secondly, the duty in the 1995 Act is not regulatory goldplating. Paragraph 6 of the Marine Guidance Note 458 states:
“The Regulations … set out requirements for reporting accidents and serious injuries. They do not require the requirements of formal investigations or other public inquiries”.
Therefore, the duty in the 1995 Act is untouched by recent changes through regulations, and needs to be retained in the event of marine accidents involving UK-flagged vessels, particularly in the deep-sea sector.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker on his usual diligence and research, looking into the details of why the Government want to remove this measure. Indeed, he is right: a lot has come from the inquiries, and I will refer to some of them. I support the deletion of this clause, which would repeal the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I was a seaman for 10 years, a union official, and spent 40 years as a Member of Parliament, 10 of which as a Minister of Transport. I had to order some of these inquiries, and have experience of them, which I will bring to the Committee’s attention.
We are dealing here with the Secretary of State’s power to order a re-hearing of a formal investigation if there is new and important evidence. It is to that judgment that I now address some of my remarks: about how, given that discretion, you may make the wrong decision, and whether it weakens inquiries to simply remove the present duty to order a re-hearing, as the clause would do.
As the former Secretary of State with responsibility for these inquiries and requests for re-hearing, I think that we are all agreed that making judgments about these matters is a duty upon the Secretary of State. The clause would make it discretionary. That is what causes me concern.
I see in the nature of any re-hearing and use of discretionary powers, one is to take into account how long it is since the original inquiry before one is requested to have a re-hearing. The argument is often that it has been too long since the accident, people’s memories are not clear and it is not wise to hold an inquiry under those circumstances. Making a judgment as to the practical value of a re-hearing and what we would gain from it if, indeed, we have one are for the Minister to take account of in his considerations. But, at the end of the day, I should have thought it important, if there is to be a re-hearing, to have some idea of what one wants to find out. Can it be done by discretion? That is why we have inquiries. That is where the judgment comes in—to find out what the facts are. I suggest to noble Lords, and I hope that I will be able to prove, that the only thing a Minister can do at his discretion is to take the advice of his department, which is not always impartial in some circumstances, as I can show. A Minister is therefore highly influenced by the advice he receives from the department.
I should therefore like to present to the Minister and the Committee a couple of experiences that came out of three inquiries. I do not have to go into the detail. Some will already know them, and my noble friend has already mentioned one—the “Derbyshire”, which was a bulk carrier. Another vessel, a fishing trawler, was the “Gaul”, and the third, which most will know about, was the terrible tragedy of the “Marchioness”. When I came into government in 1997, I had to order a re-inquiry into the circumstances of those three incidents.
A long period of time was involved in all those because, after the vessels sank, no vessel was in evidence. It was not known where they were and they were only found later. The “Gaul” went down in 1974 but she was not found until some 18 years later by a TV company that went looking for her. The “Derbyshire” was another case of a vessel that went down and was found many years later, after money was provided from the trade unions and the European Community—to which my noble friend referred. They were pressing hard to get an inquiry as to where the ship was. She sank off Japan, with a loss of 44 lives, most of them from Liverpool, and people wanted to know why. I shall come to the “Marchioness” which was a particular case.
However, in the case of the “Gaul”, which went missing in 1974, she was found in, I think, 1997, with a loss of 36 lives. There had been an inquiry. Inevitably, if the vessel could not be found, one could probably say, to the best of one’s knowledge, “The vessel is not here but she went down in bad weather”. That seemed to be a reasonable conclusion. If there was no further information and no vessel, one had to arrive at that conclusion—and that is what it was. I have to tell noble Lords, as regards the “Gaul”, one has to take account of the relatives. Not much is said in here about the concerns of the relatives. They certainly want to be satisfied that everything has been done about it.
The “Gaul” case is peculiar because British trawlers were used as spy ships in the North Sea, and the Government admitted that to me in Answers to Parliamentary Questions at the time, in the 1970s. The relatives thought that the ship had gone down because she had been torpedoed on a spying mission. It sounds outrageous but that is what they believed. To satisfy that great concern, and knowing that such vessels had been used for spying off the coast of Russia, I ordered the inquiry—more to see if we could get the truth. I could only do that once the ship had been found, as happened many years later. When we investigated, there was no damage from any kind of military action; it was obvious that the ship had been overwhelmed. Anyone who knows about the fishing industry knows that the fish is wound in up the back and side, and if the sea is going the wrong way it fills that type of vessel which goes down very quickly. All the evidence showed that there was insufficient security covering the ship. She had taken a hit by a large wave and gone down. The circumstances of the loss due to the weather were confirmed, as the original inquiry had said in the absence of the ship. But we were trying to satisfy the relatives who wanted to know what happened. That is important in these circumstances.
That was the “Gaul”. I mentioned three ships, and the next was the “Derbyshire”, which sank off the coast of Japan in a typhoon. The first inquiry concluded that there was bad weather but went on to say that it suspected bad seamanship. That caused a great deal of concern among seafarers and their families.
Eighteen years later the ship was discovered after the trade unions went looking for it. Indeed, I had to make a request to Tony Blair who rang Clinton to ask whether we could use the very famous searching mechanisms of Woods Hole. That institution originally found the “Titanic” and it found the “Derbyshire”, which was smashed to bits. It managed to bring the ship together, and there was a remarkable exercise by the investigation branch in Britain to look at what had happened to it.
I do not have time to go into the technical issues but the point is that the re-inquiry then discovered the circumstances. It was not bad seamanship which they were led to believe because a rope hold had been left open and not tied down. Then it found that seamanship was not the problem but a piece of equipment on the ship had led to the loss of the vessel. It was controversial at the time because the shipyards were privatised and they had to give a guarantee that if there was negligence on the ship there would have to be compensation, which the Government would have to pay, not the people who bought the yard.
That is the background that Ministers have to consider when looking at inquiries. The “Derbyshire” case led to changes in the structures of vessels. Two or three of these bulk carriers had gone so it was right to hold the inquiry. The decision of the original inquiry had to be changed and, at the same time, we learnt about the safety of bulk carriers. Those of us in the industry saw an awful lot of bulk carriers, largely off Australia, but we always suspected that there was something wrong with the design.
Then there was the “Marchioness” and the loss of 51 lives. That was a terrible tragedy. In that case the Government did not hold one inquiry, never mind a re-inquiry. I constantly took delegations to Mr Parkinson who was then the Secretary of State. The relatives wanted an inquiry. You might ask why there was not a first inquiry. The Minister decided not to have one. He took the view that there was a court case under way on the “Bowbelle” and if it hit the “Marchioness”, that would lead to a problem. I said at the time of the accident in a letter to the Times that there looked to be negligence on behalf of the department. Why? Those launches had dance decks. When a new deck was put on an old ship the department had to make a decision on stability and safety. In this case the “Bowbelle” came up from behind and the skipper could not see because of all the dancers who were between him on the bridge and the stern.
In the week that the “Marchioness” went down I said that the department had some responsibility for agreeing to the design and the change to the vessel. The Minister had to make a decision about the inquiry. He said that there was nothing to learn from an inquiry. I pointed to a number of inquiries that changed safety procedures in the Thames. If a Minister has discretion in such cases, presumably his department has to be impartial. We discovered that there had been a mistake in the design of the vessel. The legal department told me that we could not have an inquiry because it was too long since the vessel went down. That is the kind of advice you would get from a Minister to another Minister—the memories will not be there. The legal people said to me, “You can’t get the legal power”. I had to go to the Lord Chancellor and get his view and tell my legal department that it was wrong. I ordered that inquiry.
These are the conflicts. A legal department could say, “We might have some responsibility here. We had better not have an inquiry—let’s leave it to the discretion of the Minister”. There were statements from the Minister at the time, and even though there was a duty to carry out an inquiry, he did not do so.
The point of using these ships as examples is that it was left to the discretion of the Minister. There are varying qualities of Minister, including me. One way or another we have to make a judgment. It is not a good idea to give discretion to a Minister who invariably does not come from a background of shipping as I do, which can be measured. Ministers are politicians who come from various backgrounds. He is reliant on experts but should exercise discretion over whether there is anything to be learnt from reopening an inquiry. How do you know that unless you make some inquiries? Do you just make a judgment on something and say, “I have a feeling about this. I’ve read about it in all the papers. They suggest that we should not reopen the inquiry and I won’t”.? You need the facts. How the heck do you get the facts unless they are obtained through investigation and inquiry? Are we actually saying that the Minister can make a decision without knowing the facts? I am not saying that all Ministers necessarily take the advice that is offered. I was given good advice by the department. However, when a decision is left to a Minister’s discretion, he may be overwhelmed by the experts around him whose interest is not to have a further inquiry, as I have shown in the examples I have given.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, those two powerful speeches have made the case that we wish to make from the Front Bench. We also hope to persuade my noble friend Lord Rooker than objecting to the clause itself is in fact a stronger position than his amendment. I hope the speeches have convinced a very significant number of Members of the Committee, perhaps even the Government, to think again, but they have also reduced the length of my speech because all the issues have been more than adequately covered.
I emphasise that the effect of the Government’s legislation would be to downgrade rights that are derived from a duty on the part of the Minister to a mere choice by him, which is the emphatic point that my noble friend Lord Prescott was making. There is an obvious flaw in the Government’s proposals. My noble friend has made his case already but I will show how much we on the Front Bench are concerned about this. It is not clear how the Secretary of State can be expected adequately to assess the existing evidence in order to suspect a miscarriage of justice without investigative help by the very accident investigation branch itself. As my noble friend Lord Prescott has indicated, there are very good reasons why the branch should be reluctant to participate in this. The work will now be undertaken by the branch only if the Secretary of State requests it because he already suspects a miscarriage of justice. That is a long shot in circumstances where he has no or very little evidence before him at that stage. In addition, reinvestigating might unearth difficult truths about the adequacy and focus of previous assessments by officials and the department when making the initial judgment. Any Minister should, of course, be able to process issues without fear or favour, but there is bound to be an inhibition when he is dependent on the department for certain facts.
The justification that Ministers have given for the change is entirely spurious. They have claimed that it is to safeguard the human rights of officers involved in accidents, whose careers could be undermined by an automatic investigation organised by the Minister. It might have that advantage, but it would block off new evidence to support future safety measures and which could tell families what really happened. We know, from the illustrations given today, two things from the “Derbyshire” inquiry. First, the families of those who were lost got to hear what had actually happened 20 years later, as opposed to the original depiction. Secondly, future safety measures were inaugurated by my noble friend in the department as a result of the evidence of why the ship had sunk.
I believe that the clause should be opposed and not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the Secretary of State is obliged to reopen a formal investigation either if new and important evidence that was not available at the time of the original investigation becomes known, or if there appear to be grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice. For any other circumstances, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to reopen an investigation. There is no time limitation on the current obligations to reopen a formal investigation. This is surely right and proper where there are grounds to suspect a miscarriage of justice, and the Bill most certainly does not seek to change this duty in any way. However, in other cases, the potential value of reopening a formal investigation in terms of enhancing safety for today’s mariners may—and I emphasise may—diminish with the passage of time after the loss of a ship.
The design of ships and their equipment, industry crewing and operating practices, continually change and develop. By the time that new and important evidence is found, these matters may be very different from those that applied at the time of an accident. That is not to say that one can draw a specific time limit on the usefulness of an inquiry. Each case is likely to be unique and should be considered on its own merits. This would be preferable to the current blanket imposition of a duty that may not always be beneficial for maritime safety, which is rightly our priority. Therefore, Clause 40 is drafted to enable the Secretary of State to take a considered view on the likely benefits of reopening a formal investigation in circumstances where new evidence comes to light. To be clear, a formal investigation, the subject of this clause, is very different from the safety investigations undertaken by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Prescott, mentioned that. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch’s sole objective is to determine the causes and circumstances of an accident to prevent a recurrence; it does not seek to apportion blame or liability. I re-emphasise that the clause does not affect these safety investigations, nor situations in which new and important evidence is found from accidents that have been subject only to a safety investigation. Of course, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch acts of its own decision.
In contrast, formal and reopened formal investigations are proceedings which, as well as probing the causes of an accident, can apportion liability and blame, censure ships’ officers, or cancel their certificates of competency. There have been four since 1997: a formal investigation into the loss of the “Marchioness”—the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, spoke very powerfully and with great experience of that tragedy—and reopened formal investigations into the “Derbyshire”, “Gaul” and “Trident”. The three reopened formal investigations all related to accidents that occurred prior to the establishment in 1989 of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. With most accidents since then being subject to safety rather than formal investigations, increasingly any reopened formal investigation would relate to more historic accidents.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Yes, it was the reopening of the inquiry, and it happened 20 or so years after the accident.
I stress that, even if there were no obligation to reopen an inquiry, I would strongly expect one to be called if similar circumstances to the “Derbyshire” applied. Of course, I acknowledge the importance of the reopened investigation into, for instance, the loss of the “Derbyshire” both in terms of providing answers to the bereaved families of those who lost their lives and in contributing to enhanced maritime safety for the benefit of all mariners.
I understand all the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in tabling this amendment and by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Prescott. I assure your Lordships that any decision on whether to reopen a formal investigation would be taken very seriously, taking into account the views of all interested parties, including, of course, trade unions.
During consideration of this clause in the other place, the then Solicitor-General explained the principles of how the Secretary of State would approach the decision. My honourable friend confirmed that each case for reopening would be considered on its individual merits. Such considerations would include, although they would not be limited to, the likelihood of lessons being learnt that would improve the safety of current marine operations and ship design; the likelihood of being able to identify the true cause or causes of marine accidents where these had been particularly uncertain prior to the evidence being found; and the likelihood of uncovering information that would provide a deeper understanding of the causes of other marine accidents. In short, Clause 40 would allow the Secretary of State to consider the individual circumstances of a formal investigation when new and important evidence was found, taking a rounded view of the best ways to improve maritime safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, in referring to his experience, expressed concern about the impartiality of the department and the question of fault. Now, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch must undertake impartial investigations and assess evidence, and indeed it could well criticise any department at fault.
Lord Prescott
On that point, I thank the Minister for his explanation. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has always had a responsibility to investigate. It did so in the case of the “Marchioness” but the Government would not produce the report.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think that I may need some advice from behind on that. While I am receiving that, I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, referred to what I would describe as “crimes at sea”, which the Government obviously take very seriously.
The Government have promoted guidance on the preservation of evidence at crime scenes with the International Maritime Organization. In our view, these are matters that we must take forward on an international level, with international agreements. I very much understand the points about preservation of evidence and about offering information and understanding to families with loved ones who are in this position.
If I am not given the information now that I hope I might be about to be given, I will be in touch with the noble Lord. However, given all the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prescott
I thank the Minister very much for giving a response to the last point—I could not expect him to have all the details, but at least he is aware of the problem. However, I still believe it is the right of every British citizen to have an investigation or an inquest—if, for example, their daughter has died. We should surely be entitled to report back to the people and have our Government involved in an inquest, as the Americans are doing. Our Government say, “It happened on a ship registered in the Bahamas”—but the authorities there have not had an inquest, so we should do it. I do not expect the Minister to give an answer, as it is a highly technical point, but perhaps he could just write to me with information from the department as to why we cannot have an inquest on a citizen who has gone missing, whatever the circumstances. The Americans have acted on it, and the least we could do is offer an inquest in which our own police are involved.
Lord Rooker
Is the Minister going to get back up with the advice he has got?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The advice is not on that particular matter but on another one.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I sincerely thank the Minister for his response. This is not an area I have any detailed knowledge of whatever, but I understand that over the years there have been considerable improvements, and heaven forbid there is another big loss. Part of the briefing that I have is about the size of ships. The “Derbyshire” remains the largest UK-registered ship to have been lost at sea—I was unaware of that. It was big, with a gross tonnage of 91,000. As my noble friend said, at the time the bulk carriers accounted for only 7% of the world fleet but for 57% of lost ships, so there was clearly something wrong there that had to be looked at. I find it astonishing that it was found on the sea bed at 4,200 metres. That is an astonishing depth at which to locate and recover a ship.
I will refrain from saying too much about the “Trident”, because with my noble friend here I am trying to cut down my material, but the Minister referred to it. The “Trident” was lost for 35 years. Was there not a sniff at one time that because it had been lost for so long, the cost of reopening the case was considered by some people disproportionate to the potential benefits? Only one recommendation came out of that, while 22 came out of the “Derbyshire”. The Government’s argument—my noble friend raised this because of his detailed knowledge—completely ignores the benefit of emotional closure for the families. The Minister did not refer to that at all, but it is a matter which should be addressed. If there is a sniff about cost here, I would like some further and better particulars before Report. No one is making a cost argument, I am just naturally suspicious and it is a factor that I think has to be considered at the back of our minds.
I am on record as supporting the Bill and am very much in favour of deregulation. The Government do not go far enough sometimes, and the Bill introduces regulation to avoid regulation, so it does bits of both. However, the issue here, unlike other parts of the Bill, is that we know that people have died or have been missing for decades. As a result, we know we have the issue of the families, which should be considered. There are very few cases, as has been said.
Finally, my noble friend is quite right about the discretion of argument. Just looking around the Room, I see former departmental Ministers. I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but there is a difference in the coalition between being Whips and being answerable for other Ministers; I fully accept that. My noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Prescott and I have been departmental Ministers—I was at a much lower level than my noble friend Lord Prescott—but the issue of discretion is interesting. You are allowed, as a Minister, to choose the colour of your car.
Lord Rooker
I did not mean to raise that. My driver always chose the car; but I was allowed to choose the colour. When it comes to big issues where there is discretion, the lawyers pile into the offices, because they are always worried sick about setting a precedent. They will admit that you have discretion and say, “Minister, it is your decision. However, our job is to advise you”. You get this pile of stuff about the pros and cons of creating a precedent. You are almost warned that you are not allowed to create precedents; it goes against the grain. Then their advice will be given to you in writing as part of the audit trail for the Permanent Secretary. If your decision leads to public expenditure that they might not agree with, that note will go to the National Audit Office and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
So all the pressure on the Minister is not to do it: do not use your discretion. We are talking about inquiries. Inquiries cost money; we know that. I have been in six different departments and I have watched that happen in each one—except in Northern Ireland, which was slightly different. There is pressure not to use discretion. I am not saying that it is never used, because clearly it was in the case raised by my noble friend, and I have seen it in other cases, such as when I was at the Home Office with David Blunkett.
When it is legal, it is clear cut. You think, “There is no decision to take; it is taken for me”. That is where seniority comes in. When you are considering chief executives, how much discretion do they have? If they do not have a lot of discretion, the pay grade is lower than for those who have discretion. Those who have discretion are, by and large, pressured in a very subtle way not to use it. As I said, it is about the lawyers, the accounting officer’s certificate and the Perm Sec. Discretion is there on paper. Good examples can be given—I freely admit that—where Ministers exercise it, and it is right and proper that they do. I am just saying that my experience across departments was that, by and large, the pressure is not to use your discretion.
In this case, I have come to the conclusion that we should leave this well alone and I hope that in due course, the House or the Government—it would be better if the Government did it—remove the clause or substantially rewrite it. I hope that that is the message that Ministers will take back to the department: that the provision is unsatisfactory. Obviously, we will return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is not in his place at the moment. He enjoined us to pay respect to the wonderful skills of the Minister who is about to respond to his fourth topic of the day. Having moved seamlessly from sport to parking and to marine inquiries, he now has to deal with intellectual property and, in particular, the blocking of ISPs—not an easy topic, as I know that he knows, but one that has to be dealt with as we consider Clause 41.
The clause would remove a power from the Digital Economy Act 2010 to make regulations containing site-blocking provisions. The Act gives courts the power to grant injunctions requiring internet service providers to block access to specified sites to prevent the infringement of copyright. The power was included to enable copyright owners to tackle sites based outside the UK that offer their copyrighted material illegally. Copyright owners are not able to take action against those sites in the UK and find it difficult to pursue them in their home territory. It was therefore considered reasonable to provide the ability to block access via internet service providers.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I might agree with a number of points that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made, but I particularly agree that this is a complicated area. The point of this reform is to remove a power from the Digital Economy Act 2010 to make regulations which would allow the court to grant injunctions requiring service providers to block access to specified sites in order to prevent the infringement of copyright. That is the purpose of this reform. There are wider debates about the importance of the creative industries and the Government’s programme to ensure that the creative industries remain part of our economic revival, which is a point that the Government are working on. I want to concentrate on the purpose of this part of the reform.
The Government have no intention of having regulations following the Digital Economy Act because we believe that access can be, and is in practice, blocked through a simpler mechanism via the legislation that the noble Lord mentioned, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The provisions being repealed were inserted because copyright owners were concerned at the time that, although the legislation provided them with a tool to tackle unlawful peer-to-peer file-sharing, it did nothing to help them defend their copyright against sites dedicated to infringement, which were generally operated outside the UK. Copyright owners made a case that the power in Sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act should be included to enable them to tackle such sites. They were unable to take action against the sites in the UK and found it difficult to pursue them in their home territory. The solution was to provide a mechanism through which copyright owners could apply to the High Court for an injunction requiring internet service providers to block access to identified sites for the internet service providers’ subscribers.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, following the Digital Economy Act being enacted, the Government asked Ofcom to carry out a review of the efficacy of such site-blocking injunctions, were they to be made. Ofcom concluded that in practice such injunctions were unlikely to be effective, largely due to the time an application would take. This is stating the obvious: very often people will want to ensure that there is a remedy that is as speedy as possible when time is of the essence. In Ofcom’s view, it would be no improvement on the existing Section 97A provisions under the 1988 Act. On that basis, the Government announced that they had no intention of making such regulations under DEA.
Moreover—this is important because the noble Lord also referred to this—copyright owners began to utilise other provisions in Section 97A of the 1988 Act successfully to apply for site-blocking injunctions. This rendered the regulation-making powers in the DEA unnecessary. Such provisions had not been used before since copyright owners were unsure how the court would interpret them and were worried about potentially being left in a worse position.
I want to emphasise that it is absolutely not the intention of this Government to put at risk the health and growth of the creative economy, an area where this country has a real competitive strength. If I were to take a different view with the noble Lord, I think the record of this Government has been extremely strong during a very exciting time of change in this area which is vital to our economic strength and recovery. However, Section 97A of the 1988 Act is now providing remedies for copyright owners and is doing so in an increasingly efficient and economical way. Economy in seeking redress is important. Copyright owners are content that the provisions work and have now used them to block around 40 sites. That being so, and in light of the doubts about the practical usability of the power in the DEA following Ofcom’s review, we believe there is no need for the DEA power.
“Household waste: reduction in statutory penalty
(1) Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (receptacle for household waste) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), for “3” substitute “1”.”
Lord Tope
I rise to move Amendment 62A and will speak more generally to oppose the clause—indeed, the first part of the amendment has exactly that effect, as it would delete the clause.
Earlier this afternoon we had a pretty lively debate demonstrating why parking enforcement is best left to local authorities. It is a pretty fundamental rule among any councillors who have any experience in local government that you do not mess around with refuse collection or waste collection within a year of an election. Any councillor, particularly any councillor who has served for any time, would tell you: never mess with refuse collection within a year of an election, yet here we have a clause in which the Government are seeking fundamentally to interfere with refuse collection within a few months of a general election. My mission this afternoon is to save the Government from themselves, and I hope the Minister will feel able to help me with this.
The first question I have to ask is: why are the Government doing this? Local authorities generally have a pretty good record, not just on refuse collection but particularly on recycling. There is a long way to go but the rate has increased to 43%, I think, which is very near to quadrupling in the past decade. Perhaps there will be an incentive with the landfill tax, but the amount of waste going to landfill has reduced by 70% in the past decade. Yes, more needs to be done but it is not a bad record to start with, so there is no problem there.
There is no evidence as far as I am aware that local authorities, either genuinely or particularly, have been acting disproportionately in the way in which they enforce their collection regimes. If there is evidence of that, I am sure the Minister will give it to us, but I would still need to know that that evidence is so overwhelming and strong that it requires legislation from central government to interfere in this service. If you ask most residents what they pay their council tax for, after their initial rude remarks, the one thing that most residents everywhere say is that they pay their council taxes for their refuse collection. That is one of the few services these days that local authorities have to provide to all residents, so where is the evidence?
The Government consulted on these proposals and I hope the Minister will confirm that most of the responses to the consultation said, in effect, “Leave it alone and do not decriminalise this”, so where is the evidence? Why are the Government taking the frankly rather risky and unnecessary step of interfering in local authorities’ business for waste collection?
The effect of the clause will remove the power of local authorities to prescribe their refuse collections arrangements. It will reduce the fine for an offence from the current £1,000, which is a penalty few wish to incur, to a civil penalty of £60. I return to our earlier discussion about parking, when I said that the penalty imposed was nowhere near the same sort of deterrent. As a former leader of a council that had an extremely good record on recycling I must say straightaway that I strongly prefer incentives to threats. My local authority never had to use those threats. But those threats are necessary as a deterrent.
Why do the Government want to do this? I referred to the proposals on parking as something more suited to Friday night in the pub. I suggest that this, too, properly belongs in a pub on a Friday night—from a Daily Mail reader rather than from anyone who actually has any knowledge of refuse collection services and of the drive to increase recycling rates. It probably belongs in the pub on a Friday night, not in a Bill brought forward by my Government and still less in a Bill brought forward by my Government within months of facing a general election.
This measure is in a Deregulation Bill. It does not deregulate: it removes a system that seems to be working reasonably well—I have not seen the evidence that is not working reasonably well—and substitutes that for a far more difficult and complex situation that nobody is going to understand. It is going to cost local authorities a great deal more to implement and enforce. I simply do not know why the Government want to do this.
If the Government press ahead with this—I hope that we will all be able to persuade them to think again—the Local Government Association believes that if it has to happen the current level of fine of £1,000 should be reduced to a level 1 fine of £200. I would prefer us to leave things as they are. I believe that they are working well and all the evidence suggests that they are working well. Most importantly of all, waste collection arrangements are the business of local authorities and not the business of central government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I tried to get my name attached to the clause stand part debate but somehow I failed; I think I have to start earlier than the day before. I support this very strongly. At the moment, the area that runs the decriminalised system for waste collection is of course Greater London, and it does so under the London Local Authorities Act 2007. It has been doing that spectacularly successfully ever since. It has its own rules, guidelines, enforcement and appeals process.
What happens now? Schedule 11 makes it clear that that Act is going to have to be changed to be in accordance with this new and, as my noble friend Lord Tope said, extremely complicated system of enforcement. Why does anyone need to tamper with London when it is already running a system and could continue to run it as it is without any further interventions? Why would we want to ensure that the fine that the local authorities in London are able to charge at the moment should be reduced under the Secretary of State’s say-so? Why should we interfere in any way at all with the appeals system, which is currently run by local councils and is a fairly quick and straightforward process?
To say that I am baffled by these proposals would be to put it mildly. There is probably no difficulty with a decriminalised system, but the intervention and regulations—in a Deregulation Bill—that are going to support this seem to be way over the top for anything that is rational. The Minister talks about people putting out rubbish in the wrong place, in the wrong container, at the wrong time and on the wrong day, and talks about how local authorities can run that system, but it does not require five steps of enforcement. At the moment, London puts out an enforcement notice for a penalty, and that is it. Here we have written warnings, a waiting period, appeals, notices of intent—all this over possibly one refuse bag put out in the wrong place. That really seems to be excessive in the extreme.
Schedule 11 should be abandoned. London should carry on what it is doing. It has set the tone and indeed set the stage; it has done the work, and it knows what it is doing. If the Secretary of State or the Government insist on the rest of the country having this decriminalised way of doing things then London will have to do that, but I do not think that it should do it under the measures that are in the Bill. I ask the Minister why Schedule 11 should be there at all, why London, which is already running its own system, should be involved, and why there is any question at all that it should have to lower the fine that it is currently able to charge, which is having a reasonable effect. The penalty notices are for £60. These days, people do not think that a £60 penalty is very much; they are paying £80 for parking. I strongly support my noble friend on this issue, and I want to ensure that the consideration of London is that London should be left running its own scheme.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, if the Committee will indulge me for a moment, I have kind of wandered in off the street on this particular item of business. If the Government wish to simplify and deregulate in this area, the most important thing is that they have to get local authorities to unify their procedures on waste and renewable waste. If you travel around the country, you see that every single local authority has a different policy on renewable waste. That is so bad for the renewable agenda and for recirculation. Some local authorities tell you to put all your renewables in together, such as glass, plastic and tin, and to put your waste into another bin. Others want you to divide your glass, plastic and tin separately, while others will not take glass at all and you have to go to the bottle bank, which is usually full up. If the Government wish to simplify matters, they should have some form of encouragement for local authorities to unify their policies over the whole question of waste, which at the moment is a disgrace.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, living in one local authority area during the week and in another at the weekend, I am very conscious that standards differ from one local authority to another.
It is a brave Minister, I know, who stands up to the Local Government Association embattled. The Government’s intention in these measures is to reduce the burden of regulation on householders. Representations were made on behalf of householders and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has mentioned, there was also a press campaign which suggested that the threat of large fines and criminal convictions is disproportionate to what is often in the first instance a case of people making mistakes about which bin to put out when and what to put in each. Again, as the noble Lord has just said, that varies from one local authority to another. My family is lucky in that the two local authorities in whose areas we live are relatively permissive about where you put each particular bit of waste.
The noble Lord’s amendment would reduce the fines available to level 1 on the standard scale instead moving to a civil basis. The Government think that it is disproportionate for an individual to be treated like a criminal when they may make a mistake putting their bins out for collection, and it is not right that they risk a higher fine for making this type of mistake than they would, for example, for deliberate shoplifting.
I am conscious that some of my noble friends are concerned that this clause may increase burdens on local authorities. I reassure them that our proposals do not add significant burdens compared to how the current arrangements operate in practice. As always in questions of regulation and deregulation, there is the question of the balance of burdens. The Government’s view is that we should be concerned to reduce the balance of burdens on householders.
I am also aware that some of my noble friends are worried that this clause might have a negative impact on recycling rates. We are committed to meeting our recycling targets and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has remarked, we have made considerable progress in recent years in that direction. The way to do this is to support people as they do the right thing rather than threaten them with criminal sanctions and fines of up to £1,000.
Currently, under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, householders are subject to criminal sanctions and a fine of up to £1,000 if they do not comply with local authority requirements for presenting their waste for collection. In contrast, a shoplifter may be issued with an £90 penalty notice for disorder for their first offence. The Government’s argument is that it is disproportionate for an individual to be treated like a criminal when they make a mistake putting their bins out for collection, and it is not right that they risk a higher fine for making this type of mistake than for shoplifting.
Nevertheless, we recognise that local authorities need some powers to deal with people who spoil the local area by the way they put out their waste, which is why the clause provides for a civil sanctions regime. Under this system, fixed penalties between £60 and £80 will be available if a person has failed to present their household waste as required, and this failure causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. This is what we refer to in shorthand terms as the “harm to local amenity” test, covering such things as putting waste out in a way that causes obstruction to neighbours, unreasonably impedes access to pavements, attracts foxes, rats or other vermin, or is an eyesore.
We expect local authorities to use effective communications to ensure that householders know what they can recycle; for example, by making it easier to know which plastics go in which bin. On the balance of the evidence presented in response to the consultation exercise, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised, I will have to write to him.
I make it clear that we intend to retain the current criminal system applying to commercial waste. The sanctions available to combat more serious offences like fly-tipping are also unaffected by the provisions in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised Schedule 11, which amends the London Local Authorities Act 2007 and gives London authorities similar powers to issue penalty charges to householders. We are amending the London Local Authorities Act so that civil sanctions and financial penalties will be imposed only if a householder fails the “harm to local amenity” test, and the level of penalties will be the same as under the Environmental Protection Act. In effect, the same provisions will apply throughout England. There will therefore be a degree of standardisation. I hope that this may persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Can the Minister explain something to me? Subsection (1) of new Section 46B of the Environmental Protection Act says:
“The amount of the monetary penalty that a person may be required to pay to a waste collection authority … is … the amount specified by the waste collection authority”.
That would seem to indicate that the waste collection authority had the right to set a charge. It then goes on to say in subsection (2) that:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in connection with the powers”—
one of those powers being the setting of the penalty. I seek clarity as to whether there will be a power for a local authority to set its penalty charge. New Section 20B of the London Local Authorities Act, in Schedule 11 to the Bill, is quite specific that:
“It is to be the duty of the borough councils to set the levels of penalty charges payable to them”.
That sounds great. If they must do it, they have got to do it. However, under the subsequent subsection (4) of new Section 20B:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision”,
for that.
Which is it? Will it be left to local authorities to set their own penalties? I understand that there will be a regime. Or will it be regulations set by the Secretary of State? It does matter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Baroness. At this point I may be better off writing to her to explain in detail. My note says that the Secretary of State will make the regulations, but I recognise that there is a degree of ambiguity there. We will make sure that we clarify that.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am of course, as always, grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham. I was going to say “for her support”, but who is supporting who? We are as one on this. I have just said to her that it is good to have her back onside. I always knew what she really thought, because we have known each other for so long. Now, at last, she can say it.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response and, indeed, whether he meant to or not, for confirming that we have this clause as the result of a “press campaign”—those were the words that he used—not because there is any evidence that vast numbers of innocent householders are being persecuted and prosecuted for their innocent mistakes. If that has ever happened, it is certainly not the norm. It certainly does not happen to the extent that requires this sort of heavy-handed additional regulation.
Reference has been made to different systems in different areas. In passing, most people only live in one local authority area, and it is not of much concern to most people what happens in other areas because they never experience it—unless they happen to live in two, three or more homes. Having said that, I entirely agree that greater harmonisation and simplification between local authorities in their collection arrangements, particularly for recycling, would be extremely helpful, however many homes one happens to live in. That is a job for the local authorities and the Local Government Association. It is not a job in which central government needs to intervene or is able to usefully add anything to what local authorities can do.
I said in my opening remarks—because I have always believed it very strongly—that I too believe in supporting recycling, not threatening it, and giving incentives for recycling. That was something that my council started to do the day when I became leader of it, as it happens. However, I have also said that you need to be able to back that up with a threat or disincentive. You will hope that it is never needed; if your incentives are working well and properly, that threat will never need to be used, but it needs to be there as a back-up. I am at one with the Government in wishing to incentivise rather than threaten, but not with them on the wish effectively to withdraw any meaningful threat.
The Minister says that he hopes that I will withdraw the amendment. He knows very well that the rules require that I do so. I have no choice but to beg leave to withdraw it, but I feel sure somehow that we will return to the issue of waste collection at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, and with his permission.
We come to page 154 of this remarkable and fascinating Bill. Hidden within it is a remarkable backing off, if not a total retreat, by the Government in relation to the important issue of air quality. A relatively, apparently, small deletion from the Environment Act 1995 needs to be seen in a broader context. I brought this wider context to the attention of the House yesterday in Oral Questions—and I should, once again, declare an interest as the vice-president of Environmental Protection UK, although as of now I am very temporarily speaking on behalf of the opposition Front Bench.
Yesterday in my OQ I asked the Government to spell out what they were doing about air pollution, which still causes 29,000 premature deaths. We have failed to meet EU standards in the vast majority of areas; 93% of the designated urban sites are not meeting their criteria, and the WHO has indicated on the N02 front a significant part of our urban area to be in a dangerous state. That includes this city and the second city of Birmingham, as well as places like Nottingham and many other urban areas. The Government’s own forecasts in this area indicate that those areas—London, the West Midlands and west Yorkshire—are unlikely to meet the EU limit values for N02 until, at the earliest, 2030. That is 15 years after the EU deadline. Some 29,000 premature deaths requires the Government to have a bit more urgency about this.
In the Question yesterday, other noble Lords also intervened; the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about low emission zones and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who has just returned to join us, raised the issue of diesel. No doubt we will come back to that in a moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, replied, accepting the difficulties in one sense, but spelling out a range of the things that the Government are doing and a rather more impressive list of things that the Mayor of London is doing—some of which I accept.
The Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also denied that the Government were lacking a strategy, but the reality is that the Government abandoned the national strategy on air quality. They tried to draw up a new one in 2013 but the reaction from stakeholders was such that they had to drop it and indeed it would not have met the EU requirements. They have removed the impetus that the previous Government had towards local authorities introducing local low emission zones and the only real initiative that the Government have taken in this area is a failed attempt to get the EU to agree to the postponement of the application of the next stage of EU limit values. I was right to say that there is no strategy.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, I support the amendment. Air pollution in the UK is pretty serious and getting worse. We now have a better understanding that the larger the city, the more cars there are. In fact, cars travel longer distances in smaller cities. There is increasing awareness about air pollution, particularly in London, and the parties involved realise the seriousness of this. Other cities will have to make their own air quality assessments as they grow, so it is surprising that a Government who wish to make the UK seem like a desirable place to live and set up industry have introduced this measure. We know from experience around the world that incoming businesses and industries take a great interest in the environment but, under the Bill, local authorities will not be compelled to produce these assessments.
There is an equity aspect to this. We see large differences in life expectancy across London. Studies carried out every day in London show very high levels of pollution in areas with poorer housing. Therefore, it seems strange that we should be moving backwards in this respect. Websites show that the best city in Europe in this regard is Zurich and show how bad other cities are in comparison. The Government are taking a retrograde step in this regard. That is why this amendment insists that the Secretary of State takes this issue very seriously.
I regret that the amendment does not refer to noise, because the situation in the UK is pretty bad in that respect. If you drive round Germany, you see notices on the road advising you to drive slowly to reduce noise. The North Circular road is extremely noisy. People accelerate between traffic controls and the residents have to put up with that noise. There is no attempt in this country to tell people about the danger of noise pollution and how they can moderate their behaviour to reduce it. Local authorities are not encouraged to do that. Part 5 of this schedule takes a regressive step in not insisting that local authorities not only designate noise abatement zones but inform people how to reduce noise in these areas. I hope very much that the amendment will be carried.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think there are some limits to how far we would necessarily take this as a general model in this area. The noble Lord will be well aware that all efforts to agree speed limits within the European Union and to deal with the problem of cars going extremely fast are blocked by the Germans, who have a very powerful lobby, not unconnected with BMW and Mercedes Benz, which insists on having cars which are extremely powerful, which we all know also produce more pollutants when they are being driven very fast. They are driven very fast across Germany, rather more quickly than they are allowed to be driven through other countries, so Germany is a mixed example, I think.
This government proposal is not to lower air quality. I recognise in the admirably clear speech of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the much wider issues which he is raising about the Government’s overall strategy on air quality. This is a deregulatory measure which simply aims to remove the requirement for a further assessment when an air quality zone has already been agreed. The Government give active support to local authorities when it has been decided that a low emission zone or strategy is the appropriate action. We have so far funded 15 separate low emission zone-related projects or feasibility studies for our local air quality grant scheme. We have also disseminated the results that have come from these studies as good examples for local authorities. Since 1997, over £52 million has been spent to support local authorities in delivering low emission strategies, including feasibility studies with low emission zones and the uptake of clean vehicle technology and programmes to change behaviour.
There is regular feedback from local authorities, and an independent review of local air quality management in 2010 indicated that this requirement for a further assessment, or a second round of assessment, did not add to the understanding of local air quality and actually delayed the production and implementation of local action plans required under the Act. This was confirmed in a consultation with air quality stakeholders in January 2013. I refute the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has put forward—that this is an attempt to weaken the local air quality regime. This is very much an attempt to support what local authorities do and to speed up their implementation of such zones when they are agreed. The Government continue to give active support in this regard. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the overall problem of air quality. As I sat listening to him, I recalled that, as a boy, when I first came to a choir school in London, I was here just in time for the last great smog, in 1953 I think it was. Air quality has improved a little since then, and life expectancy has improved with it.
However, this change is a limited one, as are many others in the Bill. It will allow local authorities to prepare and implement air quality action plans more quickly and to avoid duplicating information gathered either in the earlier, detailed assessment stage that is required or in the preparation of the air quality plan. That is the limit of what we are attempting to do here. We remain actively committed to higher air quality throughout Britain. We have supported local emissions zones: I have just been handed a note which remarks on the local emissions zones in Oxford, York, Bradford, Southampton, Birmingham and Hackney. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
I thank the Minister for that. As on the previous occasion, I have no option but to withdraw it. However, the basis on which I withdraw it is not quite the same as the Minister’s.
The Minister is right to say that this is a relatively specific requirement, relating to checking what the effect would be of the emission zones, once established. But that is part of the evidence for extending them further. If they were simply replacing it with something more useful, I would not object to the deletion as such. But the reality is that that is just one part of what the Government seem—despite what the Minister has said—to be retreating from. They are not encouraging local authorities in a broad sense, although some local authorities, because of impetus within themselves, are still putting forward local emission zone propositions. I was surprised to hear Birmingham on that list, but I take the Minister’s word for it; some of the others I do know about. Local authorities as a whole do not feel that they are being encouraged to initiate new local emission zones. The Government are not really answering the essential thrust of this: if they are deleting what they regard as pernickety requirements, they should do so in the context of replacing them with a broader approach to encourage initiatives and activity at local and national level to improve our air quality.
House of Lords
Northern Ireland: National Crime Agency
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the National Crime Agency will be fully operational in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, we continue to urge all parties in Northern Ireland to make progress on this issue. Justice Minister Ford has submitted a paper to the political parties which sets out enhanced accountability arrangements for the NCA. This paper should allay remaining concerns about the NCA’s role and allow all parties to support the full extension of the NCA to Northern Ireland without further delay.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, does the Minister feel it appropriate for Her Majesty’s Government to allow Sinn Fein to exercise a veto over the operation of the National Crime Agency? Is she aware that when debating Commons Amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill on 25 March 2013 the prospect of a Sinn Fein veto was anticipated? The noble Lord, Lord of Taylor of Holbeach, announced that in such circumstances,
“any Government of the United Kingdom will respond in a responsible manner”.—[Official Report, 25/3/13; col. 832.]
When will the Government override Sinn Fein’s veto, behave responsibly and fully establish the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland right away?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord refers to the words of my noble friend Lord Taylor and to the Government responding with responsibility. It is important to remember that this is a devolved issue. In order to retain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland across the communities every effort should be made to reach the decision within Northern Ireland. The Government believe that the efforts being made by David Ford as Justice Minister in Northern Ireland are working towards that end.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Northern Ireland Act, which implemented the agreement, expressly reserves and protects this Parliament’s right to override that legislation, in just the same way that it has the power to override others in the national interest? How long will the Minister wait before the inevitable exercise of that power?
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, the Government do not intend to breach the Sewel convention on this issue. We believe that there is still work that can profitably be done to bring all parties in Northern Ireland to agreement on this issue. If agreement is not reached, the parties will have to decide what measures they need to take on devolved issues to deal with the problems that they face.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend has told us that these proposals are being talked about. Can she tell us whether they are being talked about in the context of the talks taking place to try to resolve many of these issues? I was not quite clear.
Baroness Randerson
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State discussed these issues with the political parties last week as part of the wider issues that were being discussed.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, with no disrespect to the Minister, we have heard before stories about it happening soon and all the rest of it. We have repeatedly asked for the Secretary of State to get involved, which would show the urgency of the situation. The security of the people of Northern Ireland is continually put at risk by the absence of participation in the National Crime Agency’s operations. Instead of merely urging the parties to get together, should not the Secretary of State stop hiding behind the figure of David Ford and get some action on the Government’s own account?
Baroness Randerson
I understand the frustration that the noble Lord expresses, but I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been constantly involved in this issue and is regularly in discussions with the political parties. However, the noble Lord is correct in drawing attention to the fact that the same protection is not afforded to the people of Northern Ireland while the issue of the NCA is unresolved. I can assure him that we are extremely keen to reach agreement on this.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how long will the Government wait to decide to override what is not being done in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Randerson
I think the noble and learned Baroness expresses the same view that has been made clear around the Chamber not just today but in previous discussions that we have had on this issue. It is important that we are given this opportunity to discuss it because our frustration and concern need to be heard in Northern Ireland in order to ensure that all the political parties take this issue very seriously indeed.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is vital for the security of the whole United Kingdom that the National Crime Agency should be permitted unfettered freedom to operate within Northern Ireland as neither the Police Service of Northern Ireland nor the Garda Siochana will have the necessary expertise and resources to counter effectively the potential threat posed by international terrorists and criminal gangs operating across the United Kingdom’s only land border?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes some excellent points. It is important to emphasise the huge pressure being put on PSNI while this issue remains unresolved. It is also important to point out that the NCA deals with serious and organised crime which does not respect boundaries. It has been very much more difficult to deal with serious crime—child exploitation, drug related crime, fraud, and so on—since the NCA has not been able to operate.
Lord Bew (CB)
As all the parties in Northern Ireland have a very strong and noble position against human trafficking, does the Minister accept that the National Crime Agency has a key role to play in that respect? In their discussions with local parties, do the Government emphasise the important role that the NCA could play regarding human trafficking, which is increasingly troubling to those who pay attention to the affairs of Northern Ireland?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes a very important point. If the parties of Northern Ireland feel vulnerable on this issue, it will hit home hardest on the question of child exploitation and human trafficking.
Central African Republic
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they will provide to the United Nations mission in the Central African Republic.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, in April 2014 the United Kingdom supported the establishment of MINUSCA, the UN peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. We continue to support UN efforts to build its military and civilian assets to meet the mission’s mandate to build security and stability, support the political process and foster reconciliation in the Central African Republic.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. The recent decisions to extend the European mission, EUFOR, and the level 3 emergency status at the United Nations are very welcome. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and I visited the Central African Republic last month, it was clear that instability there affects people not only in that country but in South Sudan, Cameroon, the DRC and others in the region. Will the UK continue to argue for an extension of the level 3 emergency status and the European mission until there is enough stability to conduct elections and secure proper development and progress?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
First, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and my noble friend Lady Berridge in continuing to bring these issues before the House. We fully support the extension of the EUFOR mandate, which currently runs until the end of March. The intention is that, by that time, MINUSCA will be up to its full complement of peacekeeping forces and civilian support staff. At that stage, they should take full control. The noble Lord mentioned elections: that is clearly a matter for President Samba-Panza to implement. I know that she is working as hard as she can to get the elections in place.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, first, can my noble friend confirm that the UN peacekeepers are briefed not to hesitate to act in compliance with their mandate in rapid response to outbreaks of violence against civilians, establishing that they and not the militias enforce law and order in Bangui? Secondly, can she confirm that the warring parties and their leaders will be held accountable for any crimes that they commit and are on notice that incitement to violence—and violence itself—will be prosecuted?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
First, the conduct of MINUSCA troops falls under the United Nations rules of engagement, which are covered by international humanitarian law. In the first instance, it is for the country which sent the troops there to hold those people to account, but the United Nations as a whole makes sure there is no impunity. I think that covers my noble friend’s second question. Where people transgress, impunity should not prevail and President Samba-Panza is trying to enforce her own legal systems, locally, to ensure there is no impunity there either.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, children are bearing the brunt of the insecurity and lawlessness in the Central African Republic. UNICEF has said that children are in desperate need of protection at this time and in danger of being forgotten by the world. Will the Minister tell the House what, if anything, is being done to make the CAR a priority, especially when the security of innocent people continues to deteriorate, despite the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Baroness is right to focus on the lack of security for children. Of course, across the region there is a history of the abduction of children and their use as child soldiers. What I can say is that we remain the third largest bilateral provider of humanitarian aid in CAR, having given £30 million in direct humanitarian assistance to the Government and to refugees since the crisis began.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there are of course no fully functioning police, courts or prisons in Central African Republic. The interim President, Catherine Samba-Panza, has heard of the UK’s wonderful work on security sector reform in Sierra Leone and has specifically asked the United Kingdom whether it will provide such support to CAR. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider offering such support?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, when the President made her address to the UNGA in September, she clearly set out her ambitions. Shortly thereafter, the security problems in the area increased. I think we should give all the support we can to her and her initiatives on security and imposing the rule of law. She has a tough task ahead. However, the help we are giving through MINUSCA means that we are ensuring that trained people are there to assist with the security of that region.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, given the widespread violation of both women and children in this tragic conflict, will the Minister indicate whether there are ways in which the Government could extend the success of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative to the Central African Republic?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. The work done by my noble friends in the Foreign Office and DfID this summer is bearing good results but we need to be able to take those further forward. I listened to what he said and I will certainly take his views back to the FCO.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in this volatile situation in the Central African Republic, there clearly needs to be stability before progress can be made. Will the United Kingdom Government support security sector reform, with, in particular, advice from DfID on the development of national and local policing standards?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, of course we will listen to any requests made by the President for technical assistance. As the noble Lord will know, that can be done through the United Nations. Certainly at the moment MINUSCA, as a peacekeeping force, is concentrating on securing Bangui and the immediate area. Until that is done, it is difficult to go further outside Bangui to provide any assistance there. DfID will be doing all it can through delivering its humanitarian aid to provide the kind of technical assistance that is appropriate in those circumstances. The first objective, though, has to be to secure the region, which has been so troubled.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, drew attention to the 2.3 million children who have been affected by the violence in this country. Will my noble friend join me in paying tribute to UNICEF and the other NGOs that are providing humanitarian assistance, despite unprecedented attacks against the humanitarian workers?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I join my noble friend in that with great pleasure. I ought to declare a past interest, of which I am proud, which is that I used to be a trustee of UNICEF. It is one of many organisations that perform valiant work and without them I have no doubt that Governments would find it almost impossible to deal with the humanitarian crises we face.
Airports: London
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on the development of London’s airports.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
In Our Programme for Government, the coalition announced the cancellation of plans for a third runway at Heathrow, and the refusal of permission for additional runways at Stansted and Gatwick. However, we recognise the need for a long-term airport capacity solution to ensure continuing international competitiveness in the coming decades. Therefore, Sir Howard Davies was asked to chair the independent Airports Commission, which will submit its final report in summer 2015.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, does the Liberal Democrat policy not to build runways at London’s airports, whatever the circumstances, drive a coach and horses through the policy that my noble friend the Minister has just announced?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, it is absolutely important that as a Minister in the Department for Transport I make sure that the commission is always recognised as having full integrity and independence. Therefore, even when pressed with this question at my own party conference, I have always refused to give any answer other than that the Government will comment after the final report is submitted in 2015.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the improbability of any new runway capacity being constructed in the south-east during the lifetime of most Members of your Lordships’ House, does the Minister not agree that this is the time to look very seriously at the role of regional airports such as Birmingham, which will be only 47 minutes from central London by High Speed 2?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I think that under all circumstances it is important to look at the potential for regional airports, Birmingham being one. There are numerous others across the country with ambitions.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that her position has moved significantly? I welcome that, but does she appreciate the importance of airports to Britain’s success in global markets? If she does, can she please accept that we ought to give at least as much attention to airports throughout the UK as we do to the rest of the transport infrastructure, most notably rail and road? We have to put airports up there or we will not succeed.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, working from my transport brief, we look frequently at connectivity for airports and recognise that all transport has an important role to play in economic growth.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, what consideration is being given to the expansion of Manston Airport, which has good rail and road communications with London and could easily mop up a lot of the unemployment on the Isle of Thanet?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I have to confess a lack of knowledge on that question, and I will gladly write to your Lordships.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s answers in respect of London airports, can she tell the House whether she is more or less happy in her work in the Department for Transport than her Liberal Democrat colleague Norman Baker is in the Home Office?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I love my time in the Department for Transport, and I can say that it is one of the most collegiate places in which I have worked.
Lord Sugar (Lab)
My Lords, I respectfully point out to the noble Baroness that she may not be aware that the current arrivals and departures procedures used by civil aviation mean that it matters not whether we have one extra runway at Heathrow or 10. The fact is that we cannot land enough aircraft at the moment. Will the noble Baroness inquire of the Davies commission whether it will review the standard arrivals and departures procedures and the adoption of GPS technology, which I know the CAA has just started to use, to allow further arrivals at airports?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will go back and ask my department to have conversations with the CAA so that I can give the noble Lord a more complete answer.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will remember that after Terminal 5 was approved, we were assured that there would be no further development at Heathrow Airport. I wonder if she can give us any insight into what will happen should a third runway be built at Heathrow Airport, and how much more development we shall see there?
Baroness Kramer
My noble friend knows intimately the history of airport development in the south-east. I am afraid that I can make no further comment until the final report comes from the Davies commission in the summer of 2015, at which point I will be delighted to comment.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government sustaining pressure on Sir Howard so that an incoming Labour Government will be able to consider the report immediately after the general election? Another easy question for the Minister: how much did the unrealistic and abortive idea of “Boris Island” cost?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, Sir Howard Davies’ report will not be ready until the summer of 2015 and it is beyond my telepathic capabilities to anticipate its contents. I cannot answer for the Labour Party.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that there is bound to be a substantial delay between the publication of the report and the building of a new runway? Meanwhile, the costs will inevitably rise, and British aviation will have to pay those costs, among others. Does the Minister agree with that?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am sure that everybody would want a major decision such as whether to build a new runway to be made with the best information available. It is important in those circumstances to make sure that the issue has been fully explored. That may be called delay by some. I think that others would say that it helps to inform appropriate decision-making.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords—third time lucky. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that one of the things that have bedevilled this issue over the past two decades has been delay? Does she believe that when the Davies report is finally published, it will be implemented? I declare an interest as a supporter of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign. If she looks at that example, she will see the restorative effect of lifting the blight on an airport and the countryside coming back to life.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, Sir Howard Davies identified that there was no immediate capacity requirement; he is looking to 2030. After the report is issued we will all have to look at its contents and then make our decisions on how we will respond.
Sport: Funding
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider new funding criteria for team sports in the light of UK Sport’s public consultation on their approach to funding elite sport.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, decisions on elite funding criteria are for UK Sport. Its no-compromise approach has delivered our greatest ever Olympic performances in London and Sochi and exceptional Paralympic successes. We remain in discussion with UK Sport and Sport England on how to maximise the potential of sport to reach more people and succeed at the highest level. We await with interest the outcome of UK Sport’s consultation.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that we have moved on since the debacle of the 1996 Olympics and that we should look at funding criteria that would mean that team sports, where they have one gold medal and one championship to achieve, are marked on something that is compatible with sports where there are many gold medals and many championships to win? I ask that because team sports generally have provided very good criteria for mass participation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I would not want to pre-empt the consultation, but its purpose is to listen to all those affected by the work that UK Sport undertakes and to build on the successes that GB has had over the last decade. That is what the department will be looking into. Whether they are teams or individuals, they are all extremely important to the morale of our sporting talent.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report of your Lordships’ Committee on the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, which I had the privilege of chairing. A key recommendation in that report was about the approach of UK Sport to funding sport—and, clearly, some consideration of that is now going on. Can the Minister tell us whether the role performed by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who personally co-ordinated the Government’s activities in delivering the Olympic legacy, is a mantle that has been taken on by the new Secretary of State? If so, what is he doing to deliver a step-change improvement in the sporting activities of the country, as was originally the aspiration of the Olympics?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, 1.7 million more people are playing sport once a week than when we won the bid in 2005. There has been a 13% increase in funding for elite sport for the four years leading up to Rio 2016. One billion pounds is being invested over four years in youth and community sport, and there has been a huge increase in volunteering and a changing attitude to disability. I think that those are parts of the legacy of which we should all be very proud.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, Team GB delivered 29 gold medals and Paralympics GB 34 gold medals in London 2012. These were great performances, underpinned by UK Sport funding. Without pre-empting the results of the consultation, does the Minister agree that there should be no compromise to the no-compromise funding approach?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is important that I do not prejudge any consultation, but it is definitely the case that the difference in national morale after the Atlanta Olympics and after the 2012 Olympics—and the inspiration that our Olympics in London have given in terms of future athletes—should be very much borne in mind.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that sport is an incredible way of motivating disadvantaged children, not just in terms of their self-esteem but actually of their attainment? Do the Government want to see a situation where we are not sending 40% of our competitors to an Olympics who have come from the public school sector but are making sure that children who are disadvantaged get their opportunity? Sport England has a huge part to play in how it works with the grass roots, in order to make sure that those children get the opportunity, because I know that they have the capacity.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I very much hope for and look to a position where all children of all backgrounds have the same opportunities in sport. That is why, as I said, that the Government are investing £1.1 billion over the next four years in youth and community sport. It is precisely why we need to encourage schools to ensure—as they are required to do by law—that children have as much sporting opportunity as possible. All of that needs to be done.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, while I must congratulate UK Sport on the work it did in the run-up to the Olympics, there were some problems that have been mentioned already. Team sports have not done as well and there is real concern about the churn caused by the annual review of that programme. Could the Minister confirm that it is the intention of UK Sport to have changes in place after the Rio Olympics? Could he not try to persuade it to ensure that any changes that it recommends are done in time, so that we could have even more success in 2016?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the door is always open to all Olympic and Paralympic sports to come through the system. I understand what the noble Lord said about the annual review, but it is important, if we have the no-compromise position and philosophy in place, that they are adhered to. It is very important that we have as much opportunity as possible for successes in Rio. The funding arrangements that we have in place for Rio will remain, and those for the Olympics in Tokyo are also very strong.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend pay tribute to Sir John Major for having introduced the National Lottery, which has provided the funds that have delivered this enormous success?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is a great privilege to say that Sir John Major played an absolute blinder in ensuring that so many good causes have been supported over many years. The whole country benefits from that.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister welcome, on behalf of the Government, the announcement today that the Emirates Arena in Glasgow is to host the Davis Cup tie next spring between the UK and the USA? Does he agree that this is part of the legacy of the fantastic success of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this summer?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I very much congratulate all in Glasgow; indeed, £27 million of National Lottery money will be invested in the Golden Event Series for the period 2013 to 2019. That means that more than 70 events have already been secured, including world and European championships in Olympic and Paralympic sports.
Wales Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clause 13 to 16, Schedule 2, Clauses 17 to 30.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this is a short but significant Bill. Its core aim is to provide reassurance to people who act in socially beneficial ways, behave in a generally responsible manner, or act selflessly to protect someone in danger by ensuring that the courts recognise their actions and always take that context into account in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued.
The Bill forms part of a much wider programme of measures that the Government have taken forward to tackle unjustified and dubious claims and reduce fears of litigation. That includes transforming no-win no-fee arrangements; banning referral fees paid between lawyers, insurance claims firms and others for profitable claims; and preventing inducements in the form of cash incentives or gifts being offered by claims management companies. The latter provision is in the process of being extended to the legal profession more generally through provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House.
Before telling the House a little more about the Bill, I should declare a personal interest. During my practice as a barrister before achieving my current position, I frequently represented local authorities, the police, the fire brigade, the NHS, the Medical Defence Union and, on occasion, claimants. I was also a special adviser to the Department for Constitutional Affairs on a report that led to the Compensation Bill.
The Bill aims to achieve its goal by requiring the court, when considering the steps that a person was required to take to meet a standard of care in a claim for negligence or relevant breach of statutory duty, to have regard to three factors.
First, Clause 2 provides that the court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. That will give reassurance not only to voluntary organisations but to individuals who perform acts of kindness or make other helpful contributions to the community. The Government have already taken a range of initiatives to promote volunteering and socially beneficial activity, and we are pleased to say that the number of people volunteering is steadily on the increase. For example, we have part-funded Join In, the Olympic volunteering legacy programme so recently referred to in your Lordships’ House, which has allowed sports clubs to flourish at grass-roots level, providing worthwhile activities for volunteers and aspiring athletes alike. The Step Up to Serve initiative was launched last year by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and aims to double the number of young people aged between 10 and 20 participating in social action by 2020. We also continue to support the Alzheimer’s Society in recruiting supporters for those suffering from dementia.
Through the promotion of such schemes, we want to build a cohesive and altruistic society, and the Bill will help to further that aim by ensuring that people who want to get involved are not discouraged from socially beneficial action by the fear of being sued. A survey carried out in 2007 by the National Centre for Social Research and the Institute for Voluntary Action Research found that that issue was cited by 47% of those questioned who were currently not volunteering.
That message was confirmed in the important report published following the 2010 election by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, Common Sense, Common Safety. Four years ago I made my maiden speech on the publication of that report, an event that will be remembered only by me and possibly my wife. There was also the task force chaired by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts on Unshackling Good Neighbours. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, evidence was provided by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations which showed that this is still a matter of concern for many people, and is a significant factor in deterring those who would otherwise volunteer. I mentioned my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I know that he supports this Bill, for two reasons. First, he referred to it explicitly in his speech on the gracious Speech, and secondly he told me so in person last week. Unfortunately, he is unable to attend because he is abroad.
Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 attempted to address similar issues. It provides that the courts may look at whether requiring particular steps to be taken to meet a standard of care might prevent a desirable activity being carried out to any extent or discourage people from undertaking functions in relation to it. As the evidence from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and others shows, this appears to have done little to reassure those who still say that worries about liability prevent them getting involved in socially valuable activities. The current Bill goes further than the Compensation Act did by making it a requirement for the courts to take account of the context where someone is acting in a socially beneficial way for the benefit of others.
Secondly, Clause 3 of the Bill requires the court to have regard to whether a person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others. This represents a change to the law, as case law does not currently require a court to do this. Clause 3 will oblige the court to weigh that factor in the balance when considering a person’s liability for negligence, or breach of a relevant statutory duty. This will reassure organisations, individuals and small businesses who have taken a generally responsible approach to the safety of others during an activity that the law is on their side.
It cannot be fair that such people feel pressured to settle speculative and dubious claims. So as well as giving that reassurance, we hope that this provision will give them greater confidence in resisting such claims and indeed—this is important—will help to deter such claims being brought at all. The clause is broadly drafted to ensure that it is relevant in a wide range of different situations, and will be available to bodies such as small businesses, volunteering organisations, religious groups and social clubs, as well as to individuals.
There has been some criticism that the Bill will undermine the rights of employees. Among these is the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. I can reassure the House that this is not the case. There is nothing in this clause, nor in the Bill more generally, that will prevent somebody who has been injured bringing a claim, or prevent the court finding an employer or any other defendant negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it. In addition, the focus of the clause is on whether a generally responsible approach was adopted in the course of the activity in which it is alleged the negligence occurred. The requirement to consider whether the defendant’s approach was generally responsible applies to the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence occurred. It will not, therefore, enable a body with a slipshod approach to safety to escape liability, for example, because its general health and safety record would need to be satisfactory over a longer period.
The third main area of the Bill, Clause 4, addresses another key area of concern, and gives reassurance to those brave members of the public who see another person in danger and come to their aid. It does this by requiring the court to have regard to the context of such selfless actions in the event that a claim for negligence or breach of a relevant statutory duty is brought.
Unfortunately, there remains a reluctance among some members of the public to intervene and assist those in danger or distress because they are afraid of being sued should something go wrong. This is illustrated by the fact that 34% of those who responded to a recent survey conducted by St John Ambulance indicated that they were concerned about the legal repercussions of intervening. Clause 4 therefore provides reassurance that heroic behaviour in emergencies will be taken into account by the courts in the event of a claim being brought. I recognise that St John Ambulance has expressed some concern about the wording of Clause 4. I am sure that, if we have the opportunity, we will debate those concerns in more detail in Committee.
In concluding, I reaffirm that the Bill does not seek to confer immunity from civil liability on anyone whose actions fall within its scope. Those who are injured through negligence will continue to have access to legal redress and the Bill will not affect the court’s ability to do justice in an individual case. The Bill ensures that the important matters it deals with are always considered by the courts, alongside all other pertinent factors as appropriate.
I believe that the Bill takes a fair and proportionate approach that will provide valuable reassurance to those who act responsibly in the course of an activity, heroically or more generally for the benefit of society by requiring the courts to take that into account, while ensuring at the same time that those who are genuinely injured through negligence can obtain redress where that is appropriate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
As an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the Bill a second reading on the grounds that (1) it is unnecessary and the subject matter is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, and (2) the sole purpose of the Bill is not to make new law but to send out a powerful message or signal on behalf of the Government to the Courts, which is not a proper use of legislation.”
Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way that he has introduced the Bill today, but on this occasion I want to go a little further, provided that it does not embarrass him too much. We all know that he is a distinguished and very successful barrister, so he must have given up a lot when he joined the government Front Bench. Still, at least it can be said that he has an interesting time on that Front Bench, because instead of appearing before judges in court he has had to face a number of Members of the House of Lords and ex-members of the Supreme Court, of whom it cannot yet be said, as one looks at them, that they represent a row of extinct volcanoes. Having said that, I have to warn him that on this occasion, and in relation to this Bill, I come to bury Caesar—in the shape of the Minister—rather than to praise him.
I will start by saying something about the course on which I am embarked. I do so because different views have been held as to whether such a course is appropriate. One view is that when a Bill has been passed by the elected Chamber, we should always give it a Second Reading in this House. However, that view is not supported in the Companion, and nor could this Bill possibly be described as a manifesto Bill so as to bring it within the Salisbury convention. If there were some parallel convention it would surely have been mentioned in the Cunningham report, but as far as I know it is not.
In any event, such a view is contradicted by history. There have in fact been four recent amendments in the past seven years. The most recent example is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. That amendment did not succeed but there was not the slightest hint that it was inappropriate to have approached the matter in that way.
Secondly, there was the amendment moved by the Labour Opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill in 2011. It is important to note that they voted in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, would have wrecked the Bill.
Thirdly and nearer home, there was the Fraud Bill in 2007. The Conservatives were then in Opposition. Lord Kingsland moved a reasoned amendment. His argument was that if you are against a Bill in principle, the proper course is to move a reasoned amendment, otherwise you are impliedly accepting the principle. No other course, he said, was open to the Conservative Party. That argument succeeded and I shall be asking the House to accept the same argument on this occasion. It seems to be accepted on all sides of the House—including the Cross Benches—that a reasoned amendment at Second Reading is not in itself objectionable.
Finally, it has been said that a reasoned amendment is acceptable only in exceptional cases of great importance. To refuse a Second Reading here is to give this Bill an importance that it does not deserve. On the face of it, that argument seems to be counterintuitive. This Bill is indeed exceptional—not because it is of any importance but because it is of no importance at all. It is useless. It received negligible support in the Commons.
I remind the House of what actually happened in the Commons. There were only two Back-Bench speeches on the government side. One was by Sir Edward Garnier, a former Solicitor General. He opposed the Bill in the strongest terms. He described it a silly Bill. He said it would be greeted with “derision” by the judges. Mr Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney-General, described it as “utter tosh”. We should listen to what former Law Officers have said, coming as they do from the government side. They should know. So this is not the sort of Bill of which it could be said that denying a Second Reading is in some way being discourteous to the Commons or that we should give it a Second Reading out of respect. That is all I have to say on why I am approaching the Bill in the way I am.
I will now say something about the Bill itself and will start by summarising what the Government hope to obtain by it. This has already been done by the Minister but I wish to add a few footnotes. The Bill, it will be remembered, has three operative clauses—to encourage volunteering, to tackle the so-called compensation culture and to encourage, or at least not deter, brave actions. On Clause 2 the Lord Chancellor relied on a survey of 300 people carried out seven years ago, in which 47% of them said that they would have volunteered but for the fear of being sued. That seems to be the sum total of all the evidence the Lord Chancellor had to support the clause. His view on the matter, however, was contradicted by a recent Cabinet Offence paper which states that, on the contrary, volunteering is doing well and that section of the community is thriving.
More importantly, it was contradicted from the Government’s own Benches by a former Minister for Civil Society, Nick Hurd, to whom a great deal of credit is due for all his tireless efforts in this area. He told the Commons that the number of volunteers is rising, not falling: but it may not matter, for the evidence of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warns that this Bill is not going to make any difference one way or the other, so I leave it at that.
Turning to Clause 3 on the so-called compensation culture, the Lord Chancellor said that claims by employees against their employers have gone up by 30% in the past three years. No one seems to know where that figure comes from. The evidence the other way is that workplace claims have actually gone down by half in the last 10 years, and half of those claims were for less than £5,000. The latter view was the view supported by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his report published in 2010. His view was that the so-called compensation culture is based on perception—encouraged, as it always is, by the media—and not on reality.
That view was also taken by Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, in a lecture he gave last year entitled, Compensation Culture: Fact or Fantasy?. Again, it may not matter because it is the Government’s case that this Bill is not going to make any difference. In that connection, I am referring to paragraph 23 of the Government’s impact assessment which states that any difference this clause may make will not be substantial, and that if there is a problem, it can be solved only by education, not by legislation.
Finally, as to encouraging heroism, the Minister referred to ambulance drivers. But there was a far more significant piece of evidence against it from the Fire Brigades Union. It described Clause 3 as a very dangerous clause. For years, the fire brigade’s advice to the public in the case of fire is to get out as quickly as possible and stay out. It thinks that Clause 4 undermines that advice. If a member of the public enters the scene of a fire to rescue someone, he puts at risk not only his own life but the lives of the firemen who may have to rescue him as well. The Fire Brigades Union gave two graphic illustrations of when that has happened in practice.
Those being the purposes which lie behind the Bill, I come at last—I am afraid it has taken a long time, but I shall be quicker from now on—to the two reasons for rejecting this Bill. The first is simple enough. The Bill is unnecessary. The subject matter of all three clauses is already adequately covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, to which the Minister made scant reference in his speech. I thought that it had always been the Government’s case that this Bill does not change the law. The key thing about the Bill, according to the Lord Chancellor, is that it simply lays down a set of principles. Mr Vara, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, describes is as a consolidating Bill. That is why, although it covers exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the 2006 Act, this Bill does not purport to repeal that section. If this Bill becomes an Act, they are apparently to stand side by side on the statute book. The Bill may not add much but it does no harm. Until recently, that has been the Government’s case—it does not change the law.
However, quite suddenly, on the third day in Committee in the Commons, the Government changed tack. According to Mr Vara, the Bill does change the law. He gave this reason. Whereas, under the 2006 Act, the judges “may” take certain things into account, under this Bill, the judges “must” take those very same things into account. That applies to all three operative clauses of this Bill. Which is it to be? If this is a consolidating Bill, what is it that is being consolidated? Is it “may”, as under Section 1 of the 2006 Act, or is it “must”, as under this Bill? That is the question to which we are entitled to know the answer.
If it is “may”, the Bill is wholly unnecessary and all it does is add confusion. If it is “must”, the change is crucial. Will the judges be bound to have regard to these three clauses, even though, on the facts of the case before them, they are wholly irrelevant? How are they to comply with this duty which has been imposed on them? Are they to say, in every negligence case, “I have had regard to this Bill”, so that people realise that they are complying? That seems to be what the noble Lord is saying now. If so, this is yet another case—and a very bad example—of the Government telling the judges what to do and how to exercise their discretion. That is sufficient reason for regarding the Bill as wrong in principle and rejecting it.
There is a further reason for taking this view. In truth, the Bill is unamendable. That was the view taken by the Law Society, and it was right. The Bill is so defective in all three operative clauses that the only feasible amendment is to take each of the three clauses in turn and remove them from the Bill, one by one. That was the view taken by the Labour Opposition in the other place. They moved an amendment to remove Clause 3. They might just as well have tabled amendments to remove the other two clauses. That is what I shall seek to do in Committee if the Bill is given a Second Reading. If I succeed, we shall have an Act which, after it has been brought into force under Section 5, will consist of nothing but its Title. I wonder what legal historians will make of that.
I turn even more briefly to the second reason set out in my amendment. The Lord Chancellor has said over and over again that the purpose of this Bill is to send out signals—signals to the judges and signals to the public. I will say no more about sending out signals to the judges. What about signals to the public? If, as we are told, the intention is, for example, to increase the number of volunteers, or to reduce the number of spurious claims, surely the way to do that is for Ministers to appear on television and write to the papers. Are potential volunteers somehow supposed to become aware of the Bill and say to themselves, “Now it is all right; now I can volunteer; now I can sleep easily at night”? Nobody in their right mind could take that view of what would actually happen as a result of the Bill. If so, does it not follow that the Bill is a misuse by the Government of the legislative process? I say again—I and many others have said it many times—that the purpose of legislation is to make law that can be enforced in the courts. It is not to send out government messages, however well intentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the prisons are in crisis—understaffed, overcrowded, with a rising incidence of self-harm and suicide. The judiciary complains of the difficulty, delay and cost caused by the increase in unrepresented litigants denied legal aid. The magistracy is greatly concerned about the decline of local justice, exacerbated by court closures and the increasing reliance on professional district judges. An untried and risky change in the probation service is under way, beset by the loss of experienced staff and reports of confusion and disorganisation. The Lord Chancellor’s response is what can only be described as another Grayling gimmick.
Two years ago, the Lord Chancellor celebrated his arrival in office by pitchforking unnecessary provisions into the then Crime and Courts Bill, supposedly to protect householders from prosecution if they used force to defend themselves or their property from intruders. It would be interesting to learn in just how many cases that measure has been invoked. This autumn, we have a five-clause, 20-line, one-page Bill—one of the shortest on record—designed to meet another non-existent problem: the unfair or, alternatively, chilling effect of the so-called compensation culture on those who might face a claim for compensation for negligence or breach of statutory duty while,
“acting for the benefit of society or any of its members”.
From bash a burglar to hug a hero in two years.
Such was the significance of the Lord Chancellor’s proposed measure that of the 18 witnesses he invited to give evidence in support of the Bill, only five bothered to turn up. Two of those were fire authorities. The Greater Manchester fire authority was particularly exercised by the fact that it had faced two claims for compensation by people who had tripped over fire hoses in the vicinity of an accident. Quite what difference the Bill would have made to the outcome of such a curious claim is unclear. Perhaps the Minister would care to elucidate.
By contrast, all five witnesses invited by the Opposition attended. One of them, representing the Law Society, was treated to a most discourteous and offensive attack by the Minister, Mr Vara, who is clearly a graduate of the Eric Pickles political charm school. His performance only underlined how fortunate we are to have the Ministry of Justice represented in this House by the noble Lord.
The Second Reading debate occupied all of an hour and a half, with two Back-Bench speeches, one—as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—by the distinguished former Conservative Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier. The Lord Chancellor did not condescend to stay for any speeches, even Sir Edward’s. He did not even extend the courtesy of staying to hear Sir Edward speak on Report and at Third Reading. Perhaps he anticipated the forensic dissection of this flimsy foray into legislative vote-catching. Not a single government Back-Bencher spoke in the debate in Committee.
The Bill starts with the premise that volunteers are deterred from helping individuals, or society as a whole, for fear that they might be sued if things go wrong because of the alleged compensation culture which insurance companies and the media constantly denounce. There is very little evidence to support that claim. Even the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is not in his place—that ermine-clad St George, constantly in search of regulatory dragons to slay—observed that the so-called compensation culture was more a matter of perception rather than reality. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has pointed out, that view was explicitly shared recently by Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls.
The irony is, of course, that banging on about a compensation culture is itself likely to create the very apprehension that the Bill purports to allay. The reality is that anyone seeking compensation has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant has been negligent—that is, to have failed to take reasonable care—or in breach of a statutory duty, and that that has caused the damage that is the subject of the claim. Nothing in the Bill displaces that test and nor should it. If, as a result of my careless driving, a third party suffers injury, why should the fact that I may have been engaged in some voluntary service—perhaps taking an overexcited Minister to a therapy session, for example—in any way affect that third party’s right to compensation, even if he was my passenger?
The position was well summarised by the Minister, Mr Vara, in the Public Bill Committee:
“Nothing in the Bill suggests that it gives immunity from civil liability. It also does not change the standard of care that is generally applicable. That is and remains what the ordinary and reasonable person should have done in the circumstances. The Bill simply requires the court to have regard to certain factors in deciding what steps should have been taken to meet that standard of care in a particular case. It does not tell the court what conclusions to draw or prevent a person from being found negligent if the facts of the case warrant it”.
In which case, one might ask, what is the point of the Bill? He went on to muddy the waters:
“In a finely balanced case, if the court’s consideration of these provisions tipped the balance in favour of a defendant who had acted for the benefit of society, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others … or intervened to help somebody in an emergency, we would welcome that outcome”.—[Official Report, Commons, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee, 9/9/14; col. 63.]
I suspect that the welcome would not be shared by the injured party, particularly if it allowed the insurer of the defendant—if he or his employer was insured—to avoid paying compensation.
Moreover, the courts would have to engage with interpreting the wording of the Bill, which, to put it mildly, is highly problematic. Take Clause 2, which requires the court to,
“have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members”.
How would one define “the benefit of society”? Would that proviso protect somebody who negligently inflicted injury while acting for the benefit of a “member of society” who happened to be doing something inappropriate or even criminal?
Clause 3 is similarly opaque, with its reference to its requirement for the court to,
“have regard to whether the person … demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.
What on earth constitutes a “generally responsible approach”? As the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union—the members of which risk life and limb daily to protect the public—put it,
“the question of how an employer deals with … situations is not a matter of the general perception of their responsibility … The question of the employer’s general responsibility … comes down to the specifics of how they have planned, prepared and resourced the particular incident”.—[Official Report, Commons, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee, 4/9/14; col. 21.]
To cap it all, we have Clause 4, “Heroism”, which appears to be the stuff of Greek legend or the annals of Boy’s Own Annual. The court is solemnly charged with the duty of having regard to whether,
“the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger and without regard to the person’s … safety or other interests”.
We all salute those who risk life or limb to rescue others, whether they do so as part of their job—as fire or police officers, for example—or simply as courageous citizens, like the recent tragic case of the doctor who died trying to save others from drowning in the seas off Cornwall. But where is the evidence of claims for damages by the subjects of such brave and selfless interventions against those endeavouring to help them? For that matter, where is the evidence that the present state of the law deters such brave responses to emergency situations? And what, after all, constitutes an heroic intervention?
There is another aspect of this defective Bill which causes concern; namely, the possibility that references to breaches of statutory duty imply a potential defence for employers, or perhaps for those with other statutory duties—for example, in the realm of care—for acts which cause damage or loss. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the Government’s intentions in this respect, assuming of course that they are conscious of having any.
If, as I hope, the noble Lord can confirm that the Bill is not intended in any way to diminish the existing protection to employees or others, we are left essentially with a Bill which is designed to send a message to volunteers—a message to counteract the possible, but unproven, effect on volunteering of a reaction to the compensation culture mythology which the Government sedulously peddle on volunteering. This would in effect merely echo, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the provisions of the Compensation Act 2006—a well intentioned but, I have to say, not particularly compelling piece of legislation on somewhat similar lines but without the surrounding hyperbole or loose phraseology. It is hardly surprising that the Delegated Powers Committee says:
“There is nothing in this Bill”—
although, in all fairness, it did go on to say,
“which we wish to draw to the attention of the House”.
The Explanatory Notes to the then Compensation Bill declared that it was intended to,
“contribute to improving awareness … of the law … and to ensuring that normal activities are not prevented because of the fear of litigation and excessively risk-averse behaviour”.
However, importantly, they also went on to stress that the provision did not alter the standard of care or the circumstances in which such a duty is owed, and they explicitly affirmed that it did not extend to cases of breach of statutory duty involving strict liability or where carelessness was not an issue. Moreover, the notes stated that the,
“provision reflects the existing law and approach of the courts as expressed in recent judgments”.
In other words, the legislation was, in effect, otiose, and this proposed legislation is doubly otiose.
Sir Edward Garnier spoke powerfully both at Second Reading and on Report. He detected in the Minister’s speech during the Queen’s Speech debate in your Lordships’ House some lack of enthusiasm in relation to this measure. Is the Minister able, in the light of the vestigial information contained in the impact assessment, to reply to Sir Edward’s inquiry as to how many High Court or county court actions would have been decided differently if this Bill had been in force?
Sir Edward’s speech was a devastating critique of the Bill. He declared:
“I really do think that the courts will treat this Bill with derision … unless we are clear … that we are doing something to improve the situation in an intellectually sustainable and coherent way. I sincerely regret the fact that so far this Bill does not do that ... I am used to bits of Bills sending messages and signals—albeit that that is an improper use of legislation ... We do not think about what is in the legislation; we just think about the flags we are running up the flagpole in order to send a message”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 697.]
It will be gathered that the Opposition are not enthusiastic about this Bill. My right honourable friend Sadiq Khan, in winding up the Third Reading debate in the Commons, observed:
“The Bill will change little, but we will not oppose it today. We tried in Committee to make something of it, and it will now fall to the other place to attempt to give it purpose”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 705.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, feels very strongly about the Bill. He regards it as trivial and I have to say that I agree with him. However, when it comes to seeking to defeat a Bill at Second Reading, the House is traditionally cautious. I recall the two Bills that the noble and learned Lord referred to—their passage through this House occurred in the four years that I have been here. In particular, I recall the Health and Social Care Bill—a major piece of legislation affecting a huge swathe of public services and for which neither of the governing parties had made any kind of provision in their manifestos. It did not seem unreasonable on that occasion for the Opposition to move that the Bill be not read a second time.
Frankly, I do not think that a Bill as trivial as this should attract such an amendment and we will not support it. It gives a trivial Bill far too high a profile for its contents, but also it is not, in my submission, necessary to deal with the Bill in that way. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, divides on it, I will advise opposition Members to abstain. We will endeavour to make some modest improvements to this Bill in Committee. Even if we succeed in those, frankly, it will add little to the state of the law, but in my judgment that is a better process for us to follow. Indeed, in his speech, Sir Edward Garnier called on the House of Commons—mainly, as it turned out—to introduce,
“a degree of common sense into … the … Bill before the other place gives it a thorough grilling”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 1204.]
Let the grilling commence.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I agree word for word with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said in moving his amendment, and indeed with what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just said.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I remind the noble Lord that there is a list of speakers in this debate?
Lord Pannick
There is a list of speakers and next on the list is the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who is expecting to speak.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for coming to my rescue. Having done that, I hope he will not be disappointed by what I am about to say.
I support the Bill, and certainly the way in which my noble friend on the Front Bench brought it forward. The final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about dividing on the Second Reading of a Bill need careful reflection and I concur with his reservations over having to do so. There are times when the House recognises the importance of a Bill by perhaps stepping away from our usual procedures. I am not saying that this is an unimportant Bill; I have some issues with it on which I should like reassurance from my noble friend— none the less, I support it.
We are a litigious society, which I know is a generalisation. But the more litigious that we have become as a society, the more risk-averse we have become. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? Have we become more risk-averse because we have become more litigious, or vice versa? I have no polls, studies or focus groups to back up the generalisation, but I served for nearly 20 years in another place and dealt with 84,000 constituents. Since the Boy’s Own Annual—which I thoroughly enjoyed when my brothers received copies for Christmas—was published, I have seen a fundamental shift in the casework and issues brought to me by those running voluntary organisations and in our uniformed services. We are not in that era. Things have changed. If anyone wants a snapshot, to be reminded of just how things have changed, in this country a game of conkers is regarded as a dangerous sport. Conkers requires risk assessments. Some local authorities have chopped down chestnut trees to prevent conkers falling on people’s heads. That is the backdrop against which we look at the reasons why the general public have real concerns.
I shall look at this from the perspectives of two different groups of people. The first is that of the general public, people who do things on a genuinely voluntary basis—that is, supporting voluntary groups and organisations. Over the years, I have known a huge number of people who run these voluntary organisations, including the Brownies, the Girl Guides and the sea scouts. These are organisations for which people give up their time to promote within young people a sense not just of well-being but of purpose and of things that will fashion how they develop into mature, responsible adults. I take my hat off to people—often the busiest people—who give up their time to do that. Over the years, however, they have become more and more concerned when they take young people away.
I was a Devon MP, and it is quite common for the whole area of Dartmoor to be seen as one of those areas where you take young people to test the parameters of how they work as a group and what they do in an outward bound environment. Yet the people responsible for taking them have become more and more nervous of the responsibility because of the compensation culture, the risk-averse society and the need for risk assessments, which are important but have, perhaps, gone well beyond what a previous generation would have regarded as proportionate.
I believe that there is that feeling and that those people and society need reassurance. When I used to employ staff down at the other end, I would occasionally take someone in for the last weeks of term, when they were about to leave school at the age of 18, to give them a couple of weeks’ experience of what life was like here before they went on a gap year or to university. I always had to fill in a risk-assessment form. I remember the first time I had to do it and writing to the authorities in the House of Commons to ask, “What should I say is the biggest risk in having a young person of 18 in my office for two weeks?”. I was told that it was the risk of a terrorist attack.
Those are the realities of life that a lot of people have to deal with. It makes you think—there is a risk of a terrorist attack while having an 18 year-old working in an office down the Corridor. These are not just trivial things; they are things that responsible employers, caring parents, teachers and volunteers have to address every day of their lives if they are to pursue their wish to enable young people to take the opportunity of these types of activities. From that perspective, I believe it is very important for the Bill to give some clarity to what can be expected in terms of the legislation that goes with such activities.
There is another group of people for whom I should like some reassurance from my noble friend. Every year, I have the great privilege to host the ambulance service awards in this House. Each year, we see the most wonderful examples of heroism within a range of ambulance services—the NHS, private, third sector and, of course, those very important people who provide the Medevac relief in our armed services. We have heard testimony in this House from former chief constables about the dilemmas they have faced when, for example, a uniformed officer has gone beyond the call of duty and has disobeyed force orders to go into a pond or a lake to pull out someone who might be drowning. The problem for chief constables, as I believe the record of the House shows, is that if that person going in on their own, without back-up or support, gets into difficulties and is injured or even dies, the relatives or next of kin can come to the police force for compensation for the injury and damage that the police officer received while on duty. That would apply to just about all our uniformed services.
The debate has been small and amusing so far, but I hope that my noble friend will reassure me when he winds up that this piece of legislation will ensure that chief constables and those who lead and have to set out the day-to-day rules for our uniformed services will no longer have to feel that they must keep the people they employ on a string when they are faced with an emergency or something that puts the life of a person in danger. I see that the noble Lord is looking rather perplexed at this, but we have seen examples of it and have discussed exactly that in a Home Office debate during this Parliament, with former chief constables explaining what the difficulties are for them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his opening remarks, said that he had come to bury my noble friend. Shakespeare, in all his glory, did not manage to save the Roman Empire, so I live in hope.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, the words “common sense” strike a chord. It is good that we are addressing this issue today. A point has been made that the main purpose of a Bill should not be just to send out a message. That is fair enough, but the Bill is useful in trying to bring more certainty and common sense to the life that we lead. I come to this as an ordinary member of the public, with a small business background rather than a legal one, so I bow to the legal brains that are here today. However, as an ordinary person there are many incidents and events that come to mind where caution has ruled. I do not remember the full details with confidence but there was one case where someone in a uniform waited for instructions from a superior before helping in a life-saving situation, whereas the instinctive act should have been to pitch in and help right away.
On a different point, I hope that the Bill will help the small business community, where I come from. In this sector, we are always well aware that big businesses have big organisations behind them, with legal and PR departments and all that sort of thing. The small business community can be at a disadvantage when such businesses come to defend a situation where they are right but worry that they do not have the time or resources to defend themselves.
I will keep this brief because I am interested in what other noble Lords have to say, but it is right that we have this debate and ask the Government to give reassurances, as happened in the other place. There are, rightly, concerns about the compensation culture and I hope that the Bill can help to address them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, there is much to be said against this Bill and much already has been said against it. Either it is intended and apt to change the present law or it is not. Despite the Minister’s valiant and, as ever, beguiling advocacy, I find it difficult to see how a court could find, in any of these clauses, anything which would lead it to a different conclusion on the facts of a case. I await an explanation of how that could arise.
However, if it is intended to change the law, I respectfully submit that that should be made altogether clearer than it is at present. Just what change is it intended to bring about? Is this deemed always to have been the law, or will the Act take effect only from the date of some future conduct, whether that be action or inaction? If it is not intended to change the law—if it is intended, rather, to send out a message—that should be made abundantly clear, too. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has already suggested, if that is the position, it is not an appropriate use of the legislative process.
There are many legislative initiatives that are worth taking, and the Government are to be applauded for a number of recent ones such as those on FGM, confiscation of criminal assets, and the forthcoming slavery and trafficking Bill. By contrast, this Bill would essentially be a waste of legislative time and worse because, inevitably, it would bring with it unintended consequences, one of which would be the needless future waste of court time and legal expense in debating what, if any, effect it is intended to have.
One distinct curiosity about the Bill is that in essence it mirrors what Parliament enacted eight years ago in Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, which has already been mentioned. I differ from my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd on one aspect of this because, frankly, it seems to me that the change in this proposed legislation from “may” in 2006 to “must” now will actually make no difference whatever. The Bill states that the court must have regard in all circumstances to these considerations—it does already. If it is of simply no relevance, it just discards that regard which it has had to them.
As the Explanatory Notes to Section 1 of the 2006 Act say, that section addressed,
“a common misperception, that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and consequent risk-averse behaviour”.
It was intended to reflect,
“the existing law and approach of the courts as expressed in recent judgments of the higher courts”—
most notably, perhaps, the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, in the well known case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council in 2004, 1AC 46 at 82, where he stressed the importance of,
“the social value of the activity which gives rise to the risk”.
It is hardly surprising that in those circumstances Section 1 of the 2006 Act, which of course was enacted by a Government of a different political colour, has been recognised by the courts to have been of no help whatever. As Lady Justice Smith put it in 2011,
“section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 did not add anything to the common law position”,
echoing what Lord Justice Jackson had said the previous year:
“The principle enshrined in section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has always been part of the common law”.
The other striking fact about Section 1 of the 2006 Act—a shorter and simpler provision than we have here but, frankly, with the same essential effect—is the length of time it occupied this House in the course of enactment. I have here a substantial sheaf of Hansard reports dealing just with Clause 1—extracts from Second Reading, three days in Grand Committee and Report—and, frankly, much the same arguments were being advanced then about that provision as are now being made about these proposed new provisions.
I will confine myself to quoting just a single passage, from the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who said:
“Clause 1 was discussed for more than seven hours in Grand Committee, which may give some indication of the way in which it might be discussed in the courts in the land in future—at unreasonable expense, I suggest. The reason for the length of the debate was partly the question of what the clause meant and partly an attempt to change and interpret the clause to provide legal cover for the promotion of desirable activities. Thus desirable activities would take place with greater frequency. This discussion ended in some frustration, because all the attempts to find a legal way forward were unavailing. As the Minister said to us at the time, the Bill was trying not to amend the law but to take away doubt”.—[Official Report, 7/3/06; col. 648.]
He continued by suggesting that it was likely to introduce more doubt than it would remove, and that it would be unwise to agree it. Indeed, it was suggested that it should not stand as part of—in that case—the 2006 Bill, which of course contained other provisions.
Of course, it did stand part and it was enacted—although, as I have indicated, without in any way affecting the course of the law. Now it is proposed to superimpose upon our common law yet another such provision. Are we, one cannot help wondering, perhaps cynically, to expect, a few years down the line, a third Bill to demonstrate yet again some new Government’s keenness to underline that volunteering is a good idea and that compensation would not be too readily ordered when it would be discouraged?
With all that said, I shall not be voting in support of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It is perhaps a nuclear option which should come into play only on the rarest occasions—and this Bill is not, as has already been said, worthy of it. Indeed, in the 2006 Act it could not have been used because, as I said, other provisions were included. Perhaps that should give one pause for thought, should it not? You have only to add some other coherent provision and you defeat this nuclear option—so I shall not be supporting it. Assuming, however, that this Bill survives the amendment, is read a second time and goes ahead, then, with respect, it will need full dissection and drastic, radical amendment. For my part, I would, reluctantly, give it a Second Reading.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I believe that this is a worthwhile Bill. Having read the Hansard report of its Second Reading in the Commons and listened to some of the previous speakers, I am aware that it is not without its controversial aspects. Nevertheless, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward, and I am pleased to add my support.
Today, our society is in danger of becoming ever more insular. The effect of the Bill will be to encourage our fellow citizens to step forward to participate and to become more active members of their community. It will contribute to inspiring them to help others and to pay something back to society, while at the same time offering them reassurance and a degree of protection when things do not go entirely to plan or, as is inevitably the case, accidents happen.
In 2010, my husband, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was asked by the Government to head a task force to examine what prevents people giving more of their time and money to charities and voluntary groups. In May 2011 it published its report, Unshackling Good Neighbours, which has already been referred to by the Minister. That report very sharply identified an evolving and rather depressing attitude in this country. It pointed out that the significance of,
“the prevailing attitude towards ‘risk’, the downgrading of the value placed on ‘common sense’ and on the enabling nature of English and Welsh Common Law. These factors together with a reluctance to extend any significant level of ‘trust’—not just among central and local Government but no less importantly amongst the general public”.
The evidence provided to the task force identified that guidance and regulations throughout civil society are often expressed in negative terms, reinforcing the view that a lawyer, with a writ at the ready, waits around every corner when something goes wrong. The report concluded that,
“an insidious mythology about being sued”—
is—
“deterring millions of Britons, volunteer organisations and charities from helping out more fully in society”.
Whether with friends and neighbours, in the workplace or in a public space, many people have, rightly or wrongly, become apprehensive of taking part in voluntary activities, helping others or intervening in emergencies due to these types of concerns. The “nanny state” and “health and safety culture” have without doubt been very off-putting and discouraging. As we have already heard from the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice stated during the Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Commons:
“In a survey carried out by the NatCen Social Research and the Institute for Volunteering Research, worries about risk and and liability was an issue cited by 47% of those questioned who were not currently volunteering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; cols. 1191-92.]
During that debate, we heard numerous grass-roots examples from both sides of the House of the shocking ramifications of this unhealthy culture. Most disturbing were tales of people unwilling to involve themselves in emergencies because they were worried that the law would not adequately protect them should something go wrong as a result of their intervention. People have become frustrated by a poisonous no-win no-fee compensation culture, where I know the Government have bravely tried to restore the balance by way of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
A personal real-life example perhaps illustrates the difficulties that people who genuinely wish to help can encounter. I was on the Tube recently and, at a station, a very young boy rushed into the carriage. His mother and sister were following, but, before they could get on, the doors slammed shut, leaving them on the outside, and the train pulled out of the station. The boy became absolutely hysterical. The two people closest to him were men. They very kindly tried to talk to him and reassure him. However, as we drew into the next station, I could see how anxious they looked about what they would do. So I stepped forward and said that I would look after the boy and got off the train with him. The uniformed station master came and said that there had been a telephone call from the previous station and that the boy’s mother was coming to pick him up. But the point of the story is that the two men on the Tube were clearly very worried that, if they took the boy off the train, it could be seen as absconding with him, when all they were trying to do was help a little boy in trouble.
Of course, some of the examples that were cited in the other House were myths. In one, farmers in Sussex were said to be worried about salting the roads near their farms in icy weather because, if there was an accident, they could be held responsible. That was a myth. I have been told that carers of the elderly are not allowed to trim their toenails and have to call in a chiropodist. Is this myth or reality? I do not know. Sending for a chiropodist is expensive and takes time. I would have thought that trimming toenails is something that everyone does and surely most carers could be trusted to wield some nail scissors without inflicting grievous bodily harm.
I believe that people are innately good, and that this culture is causing untold damage in shackling our natural inclinations to be helpful, compassionate citizens. By allowing these kinds of fear-driven attitudes to permeate our society, we are doing a massive disservice not only to ourselves but to future generations and the long-term interests of our country. We must try to reverse it now before it is too late.
The Bill will perform a valuable function of closing the gap between perception and reality by reassuring people that the law will stand by them when they are acting in the best interests of other people. The measures will thus encourage participation in volunteering and other socially valuable activities, which could lead to a most welcome increased sense of community spirit.
What are the arguments against the Bill? As we have already heard, some are saying that it is not needed because courts should make judgments on the evidence alone. I am no lawyer and, as I know that there are many learned and eminent members of that profession in the House, I will not attempt to enter into any detailed legal debate. But surely common sense says that the intention of an action is very relevant, and thus ensuring that the context is always taken into account seems reasonable and fair. However, nobody should be immune from civil liability and the Bill does not seek to introduce that. It does not instruct courts as to the conclusions they should reach nor prevent people being found liable where appropriate.
I understand that some have tried to argue that the so-called compensation culture does not exist, but evidence does not bear this out. I am informed that in the past three years there has been a 30% increase in personal injury claims. Then there is the stress of the legal process itself. While for lawyers suing and court appearances are an everyday normal occurrence, for those outside the law who end up trying to defend a claim it can be an incredibly long and very stressful experience. It can take months, and even years in some instances, to resolve such a situation. Meanwhile, it hangs over the person psychologically, sometimes creating great anxieties about the outcome—both financial and social—and putting enormous strain on working and marital relationships. Even when it comes out right in the end, the person will have gone through the most stressful and distressing time to get there. I sometimes wonder whether lawyers really understand the very detrimental aspect that going to law can inflict.
When it comes to matters of social action, we should surely encourage and support people to step up and make a difference if they feel they can. This is a Bill of reassurance: it tells people that they can take the initiative to contribute to society without having to worry about ramifications, mistakes or unintended consequences. In short, it tells people that the law and the Government are on their side. It will make our country even more generous, proactive and socially engaged. Such a society will only continue to build its own confidence and grow into something more successful. I am proud that our coalition Government have made a commitment to encourage volunteering and involvement in social action; I am even prouder that we are now seeing it through with this Bill.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, unlike some of your Lordships, I am not disappointed by this Bill. When I see that the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward a legislative proposal, I worry about which valuable aspect of our legal system he is going to damage: judicial review, human rights and legal aid have all come under the cosh. It is, then, a pleasant surprise that the Lord Chancellor should be using valuable legislative time on a Bill which is so anodyne and pointless that the only appropriate response is a shrug of the shoulders or the raising of an eyebrow. Since neither of those gestures would be recorded in the Official Report, it is necessary to put one’s response into language.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, each quoted Shakespeare. I cannot compete with that, but the Bill puts me in mind of what Basil Fawlty says of his wife Sybil in the celebrated television programme, “Fawlty Towers”. I hope that noble Lords will excuse this unparliamentary language. He said: “She should be a contestant on ‘Mastermind’. Special subject: the bleedin’ obvious”. The Bill is a statement of the legally obvious. I find it very difficult to believe that, if enacted, it is going to make any difference whatever to any case that becomes before the courts. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill, says, at paragraph 17:
“Both the possible reduction in case volumes and the size of any compensation payments are unknown, but are likely to be small”.
The Minister is a very fine advocate but not even he can persuade me that the Bill is, as he suggested in his opening remarks this afternoon, significant.
In opening Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, said that the Bill,
“is about bringing back common sense”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 1187.]
Your Lordships have heard about common sense this afternoon; it was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, among others. As far as the courts are concerned, common sense never went away. Leading judgments have established that: they establish that where appropriate and on the facts of any particular case, the court gives weight to what this Bill describes as social action, responsibility and heroism.
Let me give two examples. Sixty years ago, in the case of Watt v Hertfordshire County Council—this is from 1954 and in Volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports, page 835—Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, said in the Court of Appeal that in assessing claims of negligence, it was necessary for the court to balance the risk against the end to be achieved. He said:
“The saving of life or limb justifies taking considerable risk”.
More recently, there was the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council, in Volume 1 of the appeal cases 2004 at page 46, which was already mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. That case concerned a hearing before the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House of a claim by a young man seeking compensation after he had dived into a lake in a country park. He had ignored safety warnings and, tragically, broken his neck. The Appellate Committee dismissed his claim. Lord Hoffmann, speaking for the Appellate Committee, said at paragraph 34 that, in assessing a claim for negligence or a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the court must consider,
“not only the likelihood that someone may be injured and the serious- ness of the injury which may occur, but also the social value of the activity which gives rise to the risk and the cost of preventative measures. These factors have to be balanced against each other”.
In his Holdsworth Club lecture on 15 March 2013, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, posed the question: “Compensation Culture: Fact or Fantasy?”. We have heard a lot today about compensation cultures. Lord Dyson analysed the case law and summed up for fantasy. There is simply no compensation culture in English law. I ask the Minister which judgments would have been differently decided if the Bill were in force. Mr Grayling’s answer at Second Reading in the House of Commons to such a question was to say that,
“this is not just about what happens in the courts … The Bill is designed to send a powerful message”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/14; col. 1189.]
So the Lord Chancellor’s concern was with perception, not reality, and the Minister's speech today was to very similar effect.
If we are to bring forward legislation to deal with perception, three questions need to be answered by the Government. First, where is the evidence that such a damaging perception exists? I entirely recognise the force of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about her experience. I recognise that, but if legislation is to be brought forward by the Government, I would hope for some thorough analysis of available evidence. Where is it?
Secondly, if we are concerned about perception, why is it that the Minister and the Government think that a message, if sent by Parliament, will be received? As your Lordships have heard, the Compensation Act 2006 already gives power to the courts to consider very similar factors to those set out in the Bill. I recognise that the Bill goes a stage further, in that it would oblige the court to have regard to those factors, whereas the earlier legislation only empowered the court to have regard to such factors, but they are very similar factors. In any event, the Bill rightly still leaves the judges with the power to decide what weight, if any, to give to those factors. I cannot understand why the Government think that the Bill will be more effective in communicating a message than the 2006 Act. It is simply unrealistic to think that someone who is considering volunteering—far less someone who is thinking of jumping into a lake to save someone in peril—will consult Halsbury’s Statutes and reflect on the difference between the 2006 Act and the Bill.
The third question for the Minister on perception is whether this is really the most effective means of correcting a false perception, if false it be. The time, effort and money spent on enacting and publicising this Bill would surely be better spent on press releases and newspaper advertisements. The Bill is a public relations exercise unconvincingly disguised as a prospective Act of Parliament. The Minister is renowned for his ability to present the Lord Chancellor’s proposals in this House in a manner that makes them sound almost plausible—and I stress “almost”. The noble Lord is in this respect, as in all respects, the man who the draftsman of the Bill had in mind. He is concerned only to act for the benefit of society. The noble Lord is responsible and, to all of us, he is heroic but not even his admirable qualities, as utilised in defence of the Bill, can make it remotely credible.
I share much of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, but I know that I am going to disappoint him because like the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others, I regret that I will not be able to support the noble and learned Lord if he chooses to divide the House on whether this Bill should receive a Second Reading. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not divide the House because that may send precisely the wrong message about what it thinks of the Bill. This is a Government Bill that has been through the House of Commons. Its contents are not objectionable; they are simply pointless. Such a Bill is not worthy of provoking a fundamental conflict between the two Houses of Parliament.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of this Bill, which I support. Before saying anything substantive, I would like to state how much I value our system of justice and the rule of law—JROL—which is the envy of the world. We know perfectly well that countries such as Russia will be in severe difficulties as long as they persist in loving a strong leader with a weak and corrupt JROL. But you can have too much of a good thing. We have a problem with the compensation culture in this country, and the Government have already taken some steps to deal with it. The problem is that many cases never get to court. Your Lordships have been talking about how the courts would deal with a case, but very often the claimant just gets paid out, because it is easier, and the plaintiff’s organisation decides to cease a commendable activity.
We are also getting into a situation where people are fearful of doing something wrong in an emergency, and then having to deal with litigation. Just for now, I will define an emergency as a situation where action has to be taken immediately in order to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. It is often much easier to do nothing, and frequently people are being incorrectly advised to do nothing. This is despite the fact that there are very few, if any, successful negligence actions in respect of emergency assistance, as your Lordships well know.
Only this morning my taxi driver explained to me that, on his statutory training course, he was advised that he should use his first aid kit only on himself, and not on a member of the general public or an injured motorist. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that this was because of the risk of being sued if anything went wrong. Now, we all know that this is completely wrong. But if that is what trainers are telling their students, we must not be surprised if the “do nothing” culture emerges. It certainly seems to me that there has not been much positive change since 2006.
All my life I have been trained that, if an emergency arises, I must do something. I have certainly never hesitated to get stuck in, because that is how I have been programmed. When I was 16 or 17, as a Stowe School CCF cadet, I went off on my own on a serious military internal security exercise with the local TA unit. At the time this was unexceptional, but now it would be a serious child protection matter. When I visited the Regular Army at about 17 years old I was allowed to drive heavy high-mobility vehicles over a severe cross-country route, including swimming the vehicle in the River Weser. This would be absolutely out of the question nowadays. Later, I did significant amounts of TA training involving military logistics. Although we took much greater risks than would be tolerated nowadays—for instance, with driver hours—I cannot recall any significant or life-changing injuries. The payback to society for the modest risk taken was very great indeed. In later years I was engaged in civilian aid operations in Bosnia and Rwanda, and in military operations in Bosnia and Iraq. I also survived for a considerable time as your Lordships’ government spokesman for transport matters in the House of Lords, despite the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. So the seed was sown very early on.
Nowadays in my spare time I do a lot of work at the REME museum in Bordon, particularly with tanks and tank transporters. Obviously they are hazardous, but you can be trained in how to operate them safely and responsibly, and that is a useful skill for life. I have no doubt that there are youth groups and charities in the Portsmouth and Southampton areas that try to steer youngsters away from vehicle crime and perhaps gang culture. I could offer some fantastic opportunities for them in getting involved with operating a tank transporter or an armoured recovery vehicle. I know from experience that I could alter a youngster’s whole attitude and make it far easier to secure that all important first job, perhaps with a plant hire company.
The really sad thing is that I know any such scheme is quite impossible for health, safety and compensation-culture reasons. It is simply out of the question. These days, when cadets visit the museum, they cannot even be allowed to climb on the tank. Of course, youngsters outside of the cadets will still get their excitement and adventure but that might be from drugs, motor crime and other undesirable activities.
I turn to the Bill itself. As I understand it, the Bill is mainly concerned with negligence but also covers a breach of a statutory duty, though not a criminal matter. Does a statutory duty include the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act, particularly the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations? It would be helpful if the Minister could write to me explaining what is covered and what is not.
During the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, Ministers seemed to be in some difficulty explaining what, if anything, the Bill did. In my time in government I found case studies very useful for explaining how the legislation worked, and particularly where the dividing line was. Officials hated case studies, and I suspect that this was because they did indeed explain exactly what was and was not intended. The alternative seems to be to let case law develop. I urge the Minister to use case studies to argue his position in Committee.
Some noble Lords think that the Bill goes too far or is unnecessary. I do not think it goes far enough. I do not think that a person should be liable for his actions in an emergency unless a perverse course of action was taken—in other words, no reasonable person with the experience of the person in question would have taken that course of action. In the unlikely event that your Lordships agreed such an amendment, that would surely change the law. It therefore seems to me that the Bill is amendable.
I do not have a problem with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, tabling his reasoned amendment, because the Bill is a relatively short and simple one. However, I disagree with the amendment’s merits. I think that we should give the Bill a Second Reading, while recognising that we will have quite a lot of work to do.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a trustee of St John Cymru Wales and as vice-chair of the First Aid All-Party Parliamentary Group. No doubt like some other noble Lords, I have received a briefing from St John Ambulance, which is of course the counterpart in England of St John Cymru Wales. There has been much discussion about the purpose of this Bill and what difference it will actually make. During the debate on the Queen’s Speech in June, I welcomed the announcement of the Bill, which I felt could help to achieve the laudable aim of persuading more people to volunteer or to provide emergency first aid assistance when needed without worrying about possible legal consequences of doing so. Having now seen the text of the Bill, and read and listened to the debates on it, I am not so sure.
The principal purpose of the Bill, since it is not at all clear to me whether or how it will actually change the existing legal position, seems to be the often-touted idea of sending a signal, both to the courts and to the rest of us, including potential volunteers and providers of emergency first aid help. However, if you are going to send a signal with any effect, it needs to be clear and unambiguous. It would also be helpful for the signal not to conflict with other signals that people expected to follow it are likely to receive. This Bill seems to fall short on those criteria, in at least two respects.
First, the Bill seeks to address an apparent concern that bystanders sometimes do not try to help in emergency situations because of fear that they may subsequently be sued for their actions. St John Ambulance commissioned research from ICM in August—which the Minister mentioned—to find out what factors might deter people from giving such help and whether this Bill would help to overcome them. The findings show that the key factor determining the likelihood of someone taking action in an emergency is having been on a first aid course. Some 55% of people with advanced first aid training would help, even with a life-threatening injury; while 55% of those with no first aid knowledge would not give first aid at all, even for a minor injury. The main inhibitor is that people lack the skills and confidence to know what to do and fear, possibly with some justification, that they may make the situation worse. Some 63% mentioned that concern as opposed to the 34% mentioned by the Minister concerned about possible legal repercussions. A rather small majority said that this Bill would make them more likely to administer first aid. Some 18% answered “more likely”, against 14% “less likely”, giving a positive balance of just 4%. One clear conclusion of this research is that the best approach to increasing the number of people willing to give emergency first aid—surely better than this Bill—would be to ensure that more people receive first aid training. One obvious way of doing that, which your Lordships have heard me mention before, would be to make such training mandatory in schools.
Secondly, the reference in Clause 4 to acting,
“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”,
runs directly counter to accepted first aid practice, as set out in the standard First Aid Manual developed jointly by St John Ambulance, the British Red Cross Society and St Andrew’s First Aid. This clearly states:
“Protect yourself and any casualties from danger—never put yourself at risk”.
What signal is this clause trying to send? Does it seek to encourage people to pile into emergency situations without any thought of the risks and dangers to themselves, which might indeed be viewed as heroic, but possibly in many instances also dangerous and foolhardy? Or should it encourage them to assess the risks and then take appropriate action, without of course feeling constrained by lack of skills or fear of legal consequences? Surely it is the latter.
One of the ways in which people are likely to hear about the provisions of this Bill and their effect in providing protection from prosecution when people act in a socially responsible or heroic way is through the process of receiving first aid training, but with the Bill as it stands the organisations providing such training would be forced to point out that it might remove such protection from people who act responsibly by taking account of their own safety before acting, as they are taught to do as part of their first aid training. That seems quite contrary to what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants to happen in first aid training. Is that the message we want to send? I have considerable doubts about whether this Bill will anyway achieve the useful outcomes to which it is supposedly directed, but it certainly will not do so unless Clause 4 is amended to remove the phrase relating to personal safety and, ideally, replace it with a form of words that would emphasise the value and importance of responsible citizens learning first aid from as early an age as possible, as a means to being effective rather than counterproductive heroes.
Like other noble Lords, I am not convinced of the appropriateness of the nuclear option of denying the Bill a Second Reading, but if it goes into Committee I hope the Minister will make every effort to address the concerns that have been expressed today, particularly in relation to Clause 4.
Lord Hurd of Westwell (Con)
My Lords, I was brought up on a fundamental principle about legislation, which I sometimes feel your Lordships would do well to memorise. It is the following: if it is not necessary to legislate, it is necessary not to legislate. Of course, it is a sweeping statement, and everyone in this House will have occasion to disagree with it, but it is not a bad working principle—and it is a principle that is entirely neglected in this Bill.
Several of my noble friends—my noble friend Lady Hodgson in particular—made general speeches about the importance of volunteering and of not being frightened by the threat of prosecution. I entirely understood and agreed with all that, but where their analysis began to crumble seemed to be on the relevance of their concerns to the Bill in front of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, speaking for the Opposition, made an admirably cutting, caustic speech, and as he approached the crucial fence, I thought that he was going to take it in style—but, having glared fiercely at it, he turned resolutely away and did not take it. Several noble Lords, no doubt obeying some vestige of party solidarity, agreed with him, the argument being that the Bill is a tiddler, there is no particular harm and no particular good in passing it and we should preserve our nuclear explosives for some great cause—unspecified—which deserves it. I think that is a rather feeble way of running an Opposition, if I may say so: to make a very acute and shrewd, sometimes unfair, analysis of the Lord Chancellor’s proposals and then not take the obvious course of supporting the amendment.
I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, partly because I want to protect, so far as is possible, the principle I mentioned at the beginning, but partly because of the point he made about this business of sending messages. It is very common now to defend a Bill—a change in the law—on the grounds that it sends out a powerful message to some group in the population whom we wish to reach. We have all fallen victim to this at one time or another. I very rarely meet members of the population who have been bowled over or entirely convinced by the speeches made, or even by votes taken in this House. It does not work like that.
If you are going to encourage people to volunteer, you have to do what my son in the other place has been trying to do until recently—to persuade them to volunteer; to deal with their doubts and fears. It is a public relations exercise. That is not to say that it is useless or to be critical of it; it is necessary to persuade. Passing laws in this House or in the other place is not an adequate way of doing this, particularly when the differences between one text and another—for example between “shall” and “might”—are minimal, as has been analysed in this debate.
If you are contemplating a brave action which may carry some risk, such as diving into a pool or rescuing somebody from a dangerous situation, you are almost certainly taking a quick decision on the spur of the moment. You are not going to creep away and find a book to memorise the course of a debate in your Lordships’ House. So this is a bad way of sending a message. The message is good and well meaning, but we should not clutter the law book of this Parliament with such messages. If one were starting again and had plenty of time and no precedent, one could make a more glorious Bill than Section 1 of the Compensation Act. Nevertheless, we do not have that time and that luxury, and it is a mistake to think that we should gild the lily by passing this Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and entertaining debate on a five-clause Bill that I am not convinced is very necessary. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said, though I am sorry if he feels disappointed by how the Opposition are responding to the debate.
We have heard from other noble Lords, in particular from my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that this Bill is unnecessary. The Government have suggested that the impetus behind this Bill is to increase volunteering and other forms of social action to provide reassurance to people, including employers, that the courts will take certain factors into account when considering claims for negligence and certain breaches of statutory duty. If the Government feel that there is a problem with people volunteering, it is probably more to do with their attitude to the sector and the policies that they are implementing.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, if there is a problem with getting people to volunteer and they are under a misapprehension about their legal position, what is needed is some sort of media campaign. I do not see the fear-driven culture to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred, nor the compensation culture to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred.
I enjoy the area of south London and the vibrant community in which I live. I do voluntary work with no fear of being sued or taken to court for trying to be a good citizen. Where I live in Lewisham, I also serve as a local councillor. I have never heard anyone say to me in the voluntary projects that I visit and work with—either in the ward I represent, or elsewhere in the borough—that they cannot get more people to help because they are worried that they might be sued. No one has ever told me that they would like to be involved, but that the risk of a negligence claim against them is too much for them to bear.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to visit the Ackroyd Community Centre in Honor Oak Park, where I am a trustee, so that he can see for himself the wonderful work that the people there undertake. He can ask them how they think we can increase volunteering. I am certain that not one word of this Bill will be raised as a barrier to volunteering, and no one will suggest that the Government need to legislate on it.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, but I do not agree with her that the Bill is necessary; all the important points she made are already adequately covered. Again, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, on this.
While we are on the subject of volunteering, what happened to the big society? No one from the Government ever mentions it—it has disappeared. Only the Opposition ever mention it to ask, “Where has it gone?”—but four years ago it was all the Government ever talked about.
I have concerns that the legislation could worsen the position of workers. Hugh Robertson, head of health and safety at the TUC, described the Bill as “gobbledegook” and said:
“There is not a shred of evidence that there is a problem”.
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred, has also raised concerns, and Thompson Solicitors said that it is,
“nonsense before it even starts”.
We generally have a good health and safety record in this country, which we should be very proud of. I visited the Olympic park just before it opened, where both the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and Sir John Armitt proudly told us that the most serious accident over the whole construction period was one broken leg, because health and safety was such an important part of life on the construction site.
It is important for the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the Government in general to make it clear that no employer should be under any doubt that the Bill on becoming law will not in any way loosen health and safety provisions or place less importance on risk assessments—I hope that the noble Lord will have the opportunity to do that when he responds to this debate. Although an employer may have a good health and safety record—and it is quite right that their good record should be taken into account—if they are negligent, they should be found liable, whether or not it is their first breach.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, referred to both the Fire Brigades Union and the St John Ambulance brigade, which made compelling comments on the issue of heroism and raised concerns about the present wording of Clause 4. They are worried that it could encourage people to engage in reckless behaviour. It is important that we are not seen to be encouraging people to act recklessly and risk becoming a casualty themselves. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will say something about that when he responds to the debate.
I pay tribute to anybody who through their work as a police officer or firefighter, or any other occupation—or as a member of the public—has acted heroically and saved others. We have seen that spirit many times in our country; nowhere was it more in evidence than on 7/7 in London. Some of the heroes on that day needed help after the event, in addition to medical care and in some cases counselling, but maybe they also needed a bit more protection from the media intrusion they suffered after those terrible events.
In addition, how would the Bill affect Armed Forces personnel and the difficulties they could face in obtaining compensation for injuries sustained while serving their country? Can the noble Lord reflect on that in particular in detail, and explain how the Armed Forces covenant would work there? I am worried that that could be an issue, so perhaps he could come back to me on that between now and Committee.
I have looked carefully at Part 1 of the Compensation Act. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, points out in his amendment and his contribution today, the matters in the Bill are adequately covered there. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is a very skilled advocate, a Queen’s Counsel and an officer of the court, while I am just a lay person. It would be helpful if he could explain to me why the Bill is necessary. Would he not expect the advocate for a defendant in a negligence claim to put these matters before the court? Would he not expect the advocate for the defendant to make use of Part 1 of the Compensation Act, and would he not expect the court in considering a negligence claim to consider such matters and give them due weight in coming to its decision?
If the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, says to me, “Yes; I would expect the defendant’s advocate to put these matters forward and I would expect the court to consider them”, again I ask, why is the Bill necessary? I certainly found nothing in the risk assessment to convince me that it was necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the document is nearly as thin as the Bill itself, and phrases such as,
“slightly less likely to pursue a case … slightly reduced aggregate compensation paid … slight drop in the number of negligence cases”,
do not make compelling or convincing reasons as to why the Bill is wasting valuable Parliamentary time.
Having said that, the Opposition will not be supporting the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, if he presses it to a vote, for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lord Beecham. We agree with him that the Bill is unnecessary, but do not believe that it is right to deny it a Second Reading. However, it is a depressing waste of valuable parliamentary time. When you look at the Order Paper and see the list of uncontroversial Private Members’ Bills—such as the Mutuals’ Redeemable and Deferred Shares Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, from the Minister’s own Benches, which has much more merit and is struggling to get a hearing—it is a matter of much regret that we are here today. My noble friend ended his contribution by saying, “Let the grilling commence”. It has started, and the noble Lord has much work to do.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, this has been a very interesting, entertaining and helpful debate, in which a number of useful points have been raised. As I explained in my opening speech, our core aim in introducing the Bill is to provide reassurance to people who act in a socially beneficial way, behave in a generally responsible manner, or act selflessly to protect someone in danger that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued.
The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, seeks to prevent the Bill from receiving a Second Reading on the basis of two premises: first, that the subject matter of the Bill is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006; and, secondly, that the sole purpose of the Bill is not to make new law but to send a message to the courts, and that that is not a proper use of legislation. The Government do not accept that either premise is correct. As I explained, Clause 3 does change the law—albeit not in a major way—by requiring the courts to have regard to whether a person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.
In making that change, we want to ensure that the courts take a slightly broader view of the defendant’s conduct than at present by looking at whether a defendant’s approach to safety during an activity was generally a responsible one, taking into account all that he did or did not do. The court will be obliged to weigh that in the balance when considering the ultimate question of whether the defendant met the required standard of care. While that does not rewrite the law in detail, it is a substantive change. If it were to tip the balance in favour of the defendant in a particular case, then that is a result with which the Government would be happy.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 also require the court to take particular factors into account. While, as I have said, Clause 2 relates to broadly similar territory to that in Section 1 of the Compensation Act, the approach that it takes is different. It requires the court to have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. The fact that the fear of litigation remains so widespread almost a decade after Section 1 was introduced only goes to suggest that it has been ineffective and that firmer action, such as this, needs to be taken.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that I had paid scant regard to the Compensation Act in my opening remarks. Let me attempt to make good that omission. In her introduction to the Compensation Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said:
“The Bill will provide better safeguards for consumers of claims management services and will reassure those concerned about possible litigation that the law of negligence takes the social value of activities into account and that they will not be found liable if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures”.
After dealing with the regulation of claims management services, she went on to say:
“The Bill's provision on negligence reflects recent judgments of the higher courts. It makes clear that when considering a claim in negligence, in deciding what is required to meet the standard of care in particular circumstances, a court is able to consider the wider social value of … the context of which the injury or damage occurred. It provides that the court can have regard to whether requiring particular steps to be taken to meet the standard of care might prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken or might discourage people involved in providing the activity from doing so.
The Bill forms part of a wider programme of work which is being taken forward across government and, in partnership with stakeholders, to tackle perceptions that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and risk averse behaviour, to find ways to discourage and resist bad claims and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation”.—[Official Report, 3/11/05; cols. WS 29-30.]
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said:
“This Bill is part of a much wider set of initiatives that is being taken forward across government. The Government are determined to tackle practices that stop normal activities taking place because people fear litigation, or have become risk-averse. We want to stop people from being encouraged to bring frivolous or speculative claims for compensation. The provisions in this Bill will help us do that. They will reassure people who are concerned about being sued that, if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures, they will not be found liable”.
Later, she said, referring to Clause 1, that:
“This provision reflects guidance given by the higher courts during a considerable period and renewed in recent cases. It will ensure that not only all courts but also litigants and potential litigants are fully aware of this, and will provide reassurance to the many people and organisations, such as those in the voluntary sector, who are concerned about possible litigation”.—[Official Report, 28/11/05; cols. 81-82.]
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seemed to imply that the notion of a compensation culture was entirely in the imagination of this Government, but it appears to have featured quite heavily in the imagination of the previous Government.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
When I said that the noble Lord had paid scant regard to Section 1, I thought that I would be understood as saying that he did not attempt to say why Section 1 does not cover everything in this Bill. Indeed, what he has just read out makes it clear that it does cover everything in this Bill.
Lord Faulks
Indeed, but the noble and learned Lord is saying in his amendment that this Bill should not get a Second Reading because the matter is covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. I am identifying what lay behind the legislation when it was brought in, what it attempted to do and why, if the noble and learned Lord will bear with me, it failed to do so.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord read out the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the previous Labour Government. I referred to Greek legend, and I concede entirely that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the previous Labour Government nodded, as did Homer. I would not defend the section of that Act but the noble Lord has to point to any distinction between the effect of that Act and the present Bill.
Lord Faulks
I am entirely aware of the question that the noble Lord asked and I am attempting to answer it.
Perhaps I may go on to refer to what happened following the passing of that Bill. Was there a fundamental change in the compensation culture? What happened? After the coalition Government came to power, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham produced his report Common Sense, Common Safety, which was widely applauded by all sides of your Lordships’ House. He observed in his report that there was a growing fear among business owners of having to pay out for even the most unreasonable claims. The fear of business owners and small business owners, referred to by my noble friend Lord Cotter, is a reasonable matter to take into account. My noble friend Lord Young also identified a public misconception that,
“we can be liable for the consequences of any voluntary acts on our part”.
He described this belief as “particularly pernicious” because it might,
“deter people from engaging in organised voluntary activities in the mistaken belief that they can be sued should anything go wrong”.
He recommended that people who seek to do good in our society should not fear litigation as a result of their actions. He said:
“It is important to have clarity around this issue and at some point in the future we should legislate to achieve this if we cannot ensure by other means that people are aware of their legal position when undertaking such acts”.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson, whose report Unshackling Good Neighbours has been referred to, led a task force established by Nick Hurd, the son of my noble friend Lord Hurd, who has spoken on this issue. He may have observed that unfortunately his son did not share his lack of enthusiasm for the Bill when speaking in a brief intervention in the House of Commons. Fortunately, the family of Hodgson was more together than the family of Hurd. My noble friend Lord Hodgson said that the fear of becoming involved in litigation was a major preoccupation that deterred people from volunteering. The task force acknowledged the work of various government departments in producing guidance on health and safety, but argued that it was unlikely to provide volunteers with the general reassurance that they seek. The task force took the view that the Government’s efforts seemed,
“‘to fall short’ of Lord Young’s recommendation to clarify through legislation if necessary that people would not be held liable for any consequences due to well-intentioned voluntary acts on their part”.
The response of Dr Davis Smith in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee was also important. His perspective as the executive director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations was interesting. He said:
“Parliament has a hugely important role in sending out messages about what is valued in society, and I think that sending out the message that volunteering and community and social action has a hugely beneficial role to play in society—recognising that there are barriers and difficulties that must be addressed—is a really important function that Parliament can play. Even the process of having discussions such as this and getting the debates out as part of the passage of legislation is helpful in raising awareness in society more broadly”.—[Official Report, Commons, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill Committee, 4/9/14; col. 14.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, challenge me to say that this Bill effectively adds nothing to the Compensation Act. I respectfully suggest that since the Act we have had an explosion of claims. These have resulted in what I submit to the House is an extremely sensible part of the LASPO Act, which implemented the Jackson reforms and went a considerable way to stopping the explosion of claims by modifying the amount of cost that could be recovered.
We have improved the control of claims management. The question of claims management was touched on in the Compensation Act. It went nothing like far enough. We have reduced the number of claims management companies. We have introduced a successful unit to monitor carefully what claims management companies do. They have halved in number. We now have heavy fines if they transgress in any way. We have introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill, still before your Lordships’ House, provisions that will deter fraudulent claims.
Anyone who watches television or reads newspapers will, I suspect, share with me the feeling of depression and disgust at the vulgar advertising for claims brought, which are often meritless. People resent being telephoned and asked to take part in a fraud, and being told that they have been involved in an accident of which they have no recollection. For those who say that the compensation culture is a mere figment of the Government’s imagination, I say that they are not paying attention to what normal people say.
Lord Beecham
Is the noble Lord able to identify what proportion of these claims relates to the provisions of this Bill? What proportion of them relates to claims for compensation for injuries suffered as the result of voluntary activity or heroic action?
Lord Faulks
I will not give details of particular claims. In opening this Second Reading debate I said that this Bill is intended to reassure those who might be reluctant to volunteer. It intends to set out matters that the court is required to take into account when deciding on cases that potentially generate those factors with which the Bill is concerned.
Can we really conclude that the Compensation Act answered the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton? I say “posed”, though the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, disavows her concern. The answer, I fear, is no. What difference is there between the terms of the Compensation Act and the terms of this Bill? One said “may” and the other said “must”. Noble Lords may remember that the difference between “may” and “must” last week caused the House to be divided on more than one occasion, so crucial was it in the interpretation of the particular Bill. Furthermore, the Opposition in the House of Commons thought that it was a sufficiently important difference to table an amendment, removing “must” and inserting “may”. There is a difference, I respectfully submit, between the provisions in this Bill and the provisions in the Compensation Act.
What is not entirely clear—and I accept this on behalf of the Government—is that all Members of your Lordships’ House know the target at which the Bill is aiming. I readily accept, as was apparent from the previous Government, that it is a very difficult target to hit. We do not suggest that judges are routinely getting matters wrong, or that they ignore these factors. However, they will now have to take those into account, and in many cases that will be an unnecessary enjoinder. Clearly, on the face of the statute will be that obligation. This Bill will contribute to an increasing reassurance which I hope the public has and that volunteers have in approaching life, which inevitably has many risks.
This debate has divided roughly—only roughly—between lawyers who are hostile to the Bill and non-lawyers who seem rather more, with exceptions, in favour of it. We, as lawyers, should reflect a little on the occasional disconnect that exists not only between politicians and the public but sometimes between lawyers and the public. Should Parliament be legislating in this fashion at all if it is simply sending a message? I entirely accept what my noble friend Lord Hurd said about the fact that one should be very cautious indeed before legislating simply to send a message. But, on the other hand, I suggest that it would be idle to pretend that part of what we do is not conveying an important message.
One has to think only of the amendment that the Government brought forward, with considerable help from my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches and with support from the Opposition, on the question of revenge porn. It sent a clear message that this House of Lords thoroughly disapproved of that activity. The reality was that the offence was probably captured by other specific criminal offences within the canon of criminal law. So strong was the general feeling that we should identify specifically this behaviour that we sent a message by legislation and made law. What is the Modern Slavery Bill about? Of course, it has important provisions in relation to modern slavery, but is accompanied by all the publicity about what to look for in slavery. Legislation is not always the dry dust of particular words. The context in which we legislate is extremely important.
I was asked many questions during the debate, and I will answer all of them in writing in due course. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer them all now. I can reassure a number of those who asked about the emergency services, for example. I hasten to add that we are very keen to encourage first aid, but nothing about this will alter the sensible practice that should be adopted by the emergency services. The law in that respect has been well visited by a number of courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. This will not change that.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in an amusing speech, referred to that well known student of jurisprudence Sybil Fawlty, and expressed the view that the case of Tomlinson, which was the backdrop to the Compensation Act, was a statement of the obvious. Why then, I ask rhetorically, was it necessary for the case to go all the way to the House of Lords, which deals only with difficult matters of law on which there is uncertainty? If the case was so straightforward it should either have been settled immediately or been disposed of without an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. Unfortunately it can be the case that courts take a little time, when faced with appalling accidents which result in serious injury, to come to the—sometimes reluctant—conclusion that they must deny compensation in the face of an apparently deserving claimant.
Much has been said about the need to sometimes take risks. Few were more robust advocates of that approach than my noble friend Lord Attlee. Much of what he said was true: we want people to take sensible risks but we are not encouraging them to do anything or forcing them to volunteer or take part in activities if they do not want to. However, it is a sad fact that people are deterred: they are aware of the risk of compensation and I am sure that most Members of your Lordships’ House agree that this can act as a negative factor in both their ability and their willingness to volunteer. Indeed, it can reduce the enjoyment of life. The Bill’s core purpose is to reassure a wide range of people who should not be deterred from engaging in these activities. I do not accept that it is improper for legislation to have such a purpose. I suggest that it is a proper use of legislation and will provide valuable support for voluntary organisations and small businesses. They can make a contribution to society without being constrained or, at least, being far less constrained by worries about being sued.
Noble and learned Lords will, undoubtedly, examine the provisions of the Bill closely in Committee—if there is one—and on Report. I do not suggest, for a moment, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is not entitled to take the course he apparently wants, of testing the opinion of the House at Second Reading. The Bill passed through the House of Commons; it received some support—albeit it has been criticised—in your Lordships’ House; it could certainly benefit from examination by those who are experienced in these matters when it proceeds further. However, I hope that he is persuaded that the Bill deserves our consideration. If it is sending a message, it is one that should be heard. It is making a small but important change in the law where there is a need for change. In all those circumstances, I ask him to consider carefully whether it would not be better to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I tried hard to persuade the Labour Opposition to support this amendment. They attacked all three clauses in the other place. I assumed that they were against the Bill in principle so I thought they would support this amendment: it would have been the logical thing to do. However, I am afraid that the ways of political parties are beyond my understanding. Try as I might, I simply could not persuade them. I was told they would definitely be opposing the amendment. If that is their intention now, it would certainly not be my intention to divide the House. However, as I understand it—and I may be wrong—they have decided at the last moment to abstain. Are they opposing or abstaining?
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I might assist the noble and learned Lord. It has been our formal position, in the discussions we have had over the last few days, that we would not support the amendment but we would not vote against it. We will abstain.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
That makes it much more difficult. It puts me in a quandary. I believe there are very many Members on the Labour Benches who want to support this amendment, if they are allowed to do so. I believe there are Members on all sides who want to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, wants to support this amendment. So what am I to do?
I will say that I wholly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in one aspect of his speech, which was that to oppose the Bill on Second Reading would create a fundamental conflict between this House and the other place. Did the Labour Party’s reasoned amendment in the Health and Social Care Bill create a fundamental disagreement between the two Houses? Did the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment in the fraud Bill create a fundamental conflict between the two Houses? Clearly not. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was right in every other respect in regarding the Bill as a wretched Bill which should have no support in this House, I cannot agree with the reason he gave that we should not agree the amendment now.
I come back to where I was. I do not want to disappoint Members who are here to vote for this amendment. I feel on the whole that the points that have been made, very forcefully, against the substance of the Bill have probably been enough for my purpose. My guess is that at the end of Committee, on which we will waste more valuable time, we will find that there is nothing we can do with the Bill—which is what I think they suspected in the other place. That is because essentially this is an unamendable Bill. I do not think that there is quite enough support for actually rejecting the Bill at this stage to justify wasting the time of the House in dividing on the amendment. I respectfully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Shale Gas and Oil (EAC Report)
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
That this House takes note of the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil (3rd Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 172)
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce the report of the Economic Affairs Committee, The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. I must declare an interest, in that I chair the pension funds of two energy companies.
I have served on this committee for seven years, four as chairman. I have to say that this subject turned out to be not only one of the most fascinating but potentially one of the most influential. At the outset I was uncertain as to whether we would get agreement, given the wide range of interests of the members of the committee as well as the wide-ranging nature of the issues—energy policy, environmental and safety issues and climate change, among many others.
The committee held 20 evidence sessions with a wide range of opinions from political, business and environmental groups. We had 30 witnesses in all covering government departments, academics, energy companies, government agencies, environmental groups, the European Commission and overseas witnesses. In the final outcome, based entirely on the evidence we received, the questions we asked and our own analysis, our report was unanimous.
I thank all our witnesses and give special thanks to our specialist advisr to the enquiry, Professor Nick Butler, visiting professor at King’s College London. His knowledge and analytical and drafting skills were especially valuable to us. I also pay special tribute to our retiring clerk, Bill Sinton, for whom this was the last report on which he served us. His administrative and organisational skills, always quietly and conscientiously undertaken, have been of great benefit to us. Thanks also to Ben McNamee, policy analyst, and Stephanie Johnson, committee assistant, for their unfailing help. I am also grateful to all the members of the committee, whose widespread interests, skills and experience, and great application to the work in hand, made it a joy to be their chairman.
Why did we choose this subject? It started with our fascination for the huge impact of shale gas and oil on the energy situation and the economy generally in the United States in a comparatively short time—the last decade or so. It led us to look at the production prospects in the UK, the potential benefits and the risks of not going ahead. We covered the progress, or lack of it, to date, the climate change effects, the environmental and regulatory concerns and what more needs to be done. I will briefly speak to each in turn.
As our report makes clear, the experience in the United States has been astonishing. I thought I knew a bit about it but the evidence came as a revelation. New production techniques to release gas from shale rock have brought abundant and growing new supplies of gas to market in a short time. Shale oil production is also growing rapidly. This has meant that the US energy mix has changed fast, with dramatic and beneficial effects for the US economy and customers. Gas prices have fallen to about one-third of the UK price level. Despite recent falls in oil prices on the world market, the benefits of shale oil and gas to the US remain substantial and long lasting, whereas world oil prices will continue to be volatile. Cheap gas has displaced coal from electricity generation in the US, with the result of substantial exports of US coal to Germany and, indeed, the UK, with corresponding climate effects.
Most significantly, energy-intensive and petrochemical industries are returning to the United States and building up their investment there rather than elsewhere as a result of the cheap shale gas now available. North America is expected soon to become self-sufficient in energy—and what a boon that is—and a large exporter of shale gas in the form of liquefied natural gas.
As to the UK, we identified substantial benefits if shale gas could be developed on a significant scale—I stress “if”. These include the obvious point about enhancement of energy security through a decreased reliance on imports, which recent developments in Russia and Ukraine have underlined; decommissioning of high-emission coal-fired generating capacity; reducing the risk of gas price increases or even possibly delivering a fall in gas prices; and, as has happened in the United States, the benefits for energy-intensive businesses and the petrochemicals sector, which could not only retain investment here but enhance it. Of course, there are benefits, too, for employment, and infrastructure, and other increased economic and community benefits for areas where shale is likely to be found and which have often suffered from industrial decline. BIS has supported the view in its response to our report that there could be more than 64,000 jobs at peak, with more than 6,000 jobs on shale gas pads, from a successful UK shale industry, and that these would be highly skilled, high-quality jobs, with pay levels higher than the UK average.
Recent geological surveys, particularly that of the British Geological Survey, have shown where the shale gas and oil prospects are likely to be, but the crucial point—and I must stress this—is that we will not know the extent of actual production capacity until the exploratory wells are installed. So far, not a single one has been.
Apart from the obvious geopolitical risks to our energy supplies from Russia and the Middle East, recent events have underlined the risks of, in the jargon, “the lights going out”. The recent closures, at least until the end of the year, of nuclear reactors at Hartlepool and Heysham, which supply 4% of total electricity supply, and the fire at Didcot, bringing the reserve over the winter to only 4%, underline the current precarious nature of our supplies.
Some might ask whether the recent fall in oil prices on world markets negates some of our arguments. On the contrary, the benefits of shale oil and gas to the US remain substantial and long lasting. We here in the UK are nowhere near the production stage, and who can say where our oil prices will be when that begins? So the arguments for swift development of our indigenous supplies remain compelling.
Media coverage of the current debate about shale gas and oil tends to be dominated by environmental and local pressure groups, as we found when our own report was published. Detractors and critics occupy the headlines much more than the proponents. I sometimes wonder what the public reaction would be some years hence if our energy supplies and prices were constantly under pressure and we had missed the opportunity of our own shale gas and oil production. Where would the blame then lie? Therefore, we need to do everything can to ensure, first, that environmental and safety questions are totally addressed and, secondly, that the positive case for exploring and developing our own potential and its importance is fully put over.
We devoted a great deal of our report to the concerns, because it is clear that they need thoroughly to be examined. On climate change, we found persuasive the conclusion that the carbon footprint of shale gas, including fugitive methane emissions, is similar to that of conventional gas production and substantially less than coal. We endorsed the recommendation for a monitoring programme to measure the level of fugitive methane when shale gas extraction begins in the UK. We considered not only that the development of shale gas in the UK is compatible with the UK’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because of the acknowledged role for gas, but that substitution of British shale gas for imported LNG would reduce the carbon footprint.
A large section of our report is concerned with examining the environmental impact of shale gas in the UK, covering ground water contamination, disposal and treatment of flow-back water, the effect on UK water supply, seismic activity and so on.
We also had an impressive amount of evidence about the robustness of the UK regulatory regime in relation to all these matters, and that is crucial. There is an impressive amount of scientific evidence that, with a robust regulatory regime, the risks to the environment and public health are low. We concluded that, with such a regime in place, the environmental risks are small, whereas the benefits, if shale gas development can take place, are substantial.
The one area where environmental concerns are undoubted is the increase in traffic and disruption in places close to the development of shale, especially in the exploratory stage and when the wells are drilled. We acknowledge that, as with any industrial activity of that nature, there would be these problems and they would be significant for that period. This is why an important role for the industry’s community benefit scheme is to compensate the communities and the individuals directly affected. However, once that initial work has been completed, the impact should be low. Who even in Dorset knows where Wytch Farm—the land outlet for one of our major undersea oil wells—actually is?
We heard much evidence that the UK’s regulatory framework is more rigorous than that of the US but, even so, we argued that it was crucial that the Government explicitly continue to address the safety issues. I warmly welcome the Government’s response on this aspect, which points out that the UK has more than 50 years’ experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry nationally and has an effective system for addressing safety risks; and stresses that the Government will continue to set this out.
However, while the UK’s regulatory framework for oil and gas exploration and production is highly regarded internationally, it is, as we say in our report, also dauntingly complex in this area and untested by large-scale onshore development of shale. While the Government’s response points out what they are doing on this front, many complexities remain; despite the attempts at co-ordination, many responsibilities are divided between different agencies. Are local authorities sufficiently resourced and geared up with the skills for the necessary technical challenges?
I welcome the Government’s swift response on one question where the UK is at a disadvantage compared with the US—namely underground access—and their proposal in the Infrastructure Bill for companies to be given a right of access below 300 metres, in return for a voluntary payment and notification to the community. However, there continue to be concerns about the costs, complexities and delays involved in the planning process.
I do not have time to go into all the aspects of the streamlining of the planning process that are listed in our report and the Government’s response. However, one of our American witnesses, when asked if he would consider applying for an exploratory well in the UK at present, concluded that it was clear that he would not, and for these reasons. However, the proof of the pudding is in what is happening on the ground, given the urgency of getting material, practical progress. The plain fact is that not even one application for an exploratory well is likely to be granted this year. At best, there might be three or four next year. This is an area which needs continuing urgent action by Ministers. We need to see results; otherwise, developers—which, at this stage, are largely private or comparatively small in terms of the industry as a whole—will be discouraged.
The Government’s response to our report on this area said:
“Development and production will take time. The first successful shale fracking demonstrations in the United States were in the early 1990s, but production at commercial scale did not get under way until the early 2000s”.
I hope that is not the timescale by which the Government intend to judge themselves. We simply cannot wait that long.
Let me be clear: our verdict was not to criticise the general policy of the Government or to oppose their direction. Indeed, we strongly endorse it. We simply feel that, for all the welcome developments in pulling together the planning complexities, in the encouraging fiscal measures that the Chancellor has introduced, and in the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s own speeches earlier this year about,
“going all out for shale”,
not enough is being done.
We want a more strongly co-ordinated government campaign, and one given higher priority to put over the message constantly repeated and speed up the process. That is why we recommended in our report as one of our conclusions that,
“since several Departments share responsibility for policy on shale gas, the Government should take measures to improve coordination, clarity and speed of policy making and its implementation. We recommend in particular that the Prime Minister should establish a Cabinet Committee or Sub-Committee, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to direct and coordinate policy on development of shale gas, with a mandate to promote well regulated exploration and development of the UK’s shale gas resource”.
However it is done, we need to ensure that the important potential benefits are constantly emphasised and the relevant measures urgently pursued. In short, exploration and appraisal of our shale resource has been too slow. Here is a potential economic prize which we should grasp without further delay. We need to get on with it.
Lord Hollick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, not only for introducing the debate and chairing the committee during the inquiry but for his excellent chairmanship over the past four years. He has managed to keep a group of members, always of strong opinions and often unafraid to express them, in fairly good order. He has done that with quiet authority, charm and good humour. As he mentioned in his introductory remarks, he has kept us focused on the evidence. That has enabled us to reach unanimity on all the reports that he has chaired, which has given those reports a particular authority, helped to shape the debate and, in many cases, led to important change.
A couple of weeks ago, National Grid warned that the tightening balance of generating capacity and demand had forced it to enter into agreement with some customers to allow their supplies to be interrupted to keep the lights on. That extraordinary state of affairs has come to pass courtesy of a shambolic national energy policy and incompetence in Westminster and Whitehall. Although it has been evident for many years that our generating capacity was reaching a crunch point, the Government have failed to devise an attractive environment for encouraging the private sector to invest in new generating capacity to provide consumers with competitively priced energy and reduce emissions.
We are now using the most carbon-intensive fuel—coal—to generate 40% of our electricity. We are investing in very high-cost renewables but because those are intermittent, gas and some coal stations have to be held in reserve at very high cost, to be borne by the taxpayer in the form of capacity payments. As Sam Laidlaw of Centrica pointed out last week, we—that is, the consumer—are paying at the same time to replace coal and to keep coal capacity on standby.
The new nuclear generating capacity at Hinkley Point, built partially to replace our ageing nuclear fleet, comes at a dizzyingly high price. At a time when energy costs generally are falling, the Government have entered an agreement to pay EDF—partially owned by the French Government—twice the current wholesale price for electricity, index-linked for 35 years. The PM’s concern about the £1.7 billion payment to the EU pales into insignificance when compared with the payment to EDF to be borne by every household in the land for each of the next 35 years.
Professor Nick Butler, our excellent specialist adviser, called last week for an independent review of our energy policy before the situation deteriorates further. He is right. Does the Minister agree that such a review is a priority?
How would shale gas improve the energy picture? If shale gas can be developed in the UK it could play a valuable role in our energy mix, to the benefit of consumers and the overall economy. It will help to fill the gap as North Sea gas declines; it will halve emissions by replacing coal; and it will provide a home-produced source of energy which can help us to transition to affordable renewable sources of energy. Yet the search for shale gas in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said, has yet to start in any meaningful way. To date, only one well has been fracked—and that was in 2011. As the noble Lord said, the expectation in the industry is that there will be three wells drilled in 2015.
The British Geological Survey has identified sizeable reserves of gas, and in some cases oil, in Lancashire and Yorkshire, southern England and the Midland valley of Scotland. But until test drilling takes place no one knows whether those reserves are sufficient in scale and accessibility to make exploitation economic. The BGS survey suggests that the shale gas deposits identified could supply gas for up to 40 years at the current level of consumption, which means that shale gas could make a significant contribution to the UK’s energy needs. Shale gas would then reduce dependence on imports and provide important security of supply at a time when, as recent events in Ukraine have shown, overreliance on imported fuel carries risks.
While shale is unlikely to have the same downward impact on UK gas prices as it has in the US, because our gas supply is part of a Europe-wide interconnected network, it can moderate price rises. There is also a financial windfall. The public purse will benefit from taxes levied and, importantly, local communities will derive significant benefit from their share of the revenue generated by gas supplied from wells in their localities. Up to a quarter of a million jobs in highly energy-dependent industries will be preserved and an estimated 20,000 to 70,000 jobs will be created by the shale gas industry itself.
Communities where shale drilling is planned to take place have understandably raised concerns about its impact in their local environment, pointing to evidence from the US about groundwater pollution and the use of toxic chemicals. A seismic event in 2011 at Preese Hall, outside Blackpool, further heightened concerns. In 2012, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering produced an extensive report into shale gas extraction, which concluded that the risks associated with fracking could all be managed with suitable regulation and care.
We took evidence from a wide range of academics and industry experts from the UK and the USA, and from UK regulatory bodies. Based upon the broad range of evidence we received, there was general agreement that while an industrial process like drilling for shale gas brings with it a level of risk, these risks can be satisfactorily managed by scrupulous adherence to best practice. We can take advantage of some of the significant technological advances in the United States in recent years, which have improved safety, eliminated toxic chemicals and reduced water depletion.
Mining and drilling are not new activities in the UK; we have long experience of managing such activities well. The regulatory regime in the UK is in some ways more rigorous than in the US, and although it remains to be tested in the shale gas industry, its excellent record in regulating offshore and onshore oil exploration gave us confidence that the shale industry can be effectively regulated. Companies with the necessary finance and expertise stand ready to explore shale gas opportunities. At the highest level, the Government have voiced their enthusiasm. The Prime Minister wants to go “all out for shale”, the Chancellor is offering tax incentives and legislation has been introduced to allow companies to drill horizontally under adjacent land.
What, then, stands in the way of rapid development of this promising natural resource? In a word, it is bureaucracy. The regulatory regime is complex, unwieldy and slow with many government agencies sharing responsibility for approving fracking applications. The process is bedevilled by complexity; it lacks transparency, accountability and consistency. Cuadrilla, one of the companies seeking to drill for shale gas, estimated that it could take up to 16 months to navigate the process of obtaining permission to start drilling. We were told that local authorities were not adequately resourced to deal expeditiously with the approval process. Will the Government take steps to ensure that local authorities have the necessary resources?
We recommended that the Government appoint a lead regulator to address these shortcomings. To get an overall grip and provide authoritative leadership of this important opportunity, we also recommended that the Chancellor chairs a sub-committee of the Cabinet to turn the Government’s enthusiasm into action. The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s frankly flaccid, complacent response to our report provides ample evidence of why that leadership is so badly needed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, and pay tribute to his leadership over the several years in which he has chaired us in several complex and important inquiries. This report is one of those and it is a very helpful contribution to the debate on shale oil and gas, which of course is primarily about gas.
As we say, the aim of the report is to focus on the facts. Some have been established, as far as we were able, but many have not because either they are unknown or they need further work. We need to know the extent of shale gas and oil that could be extracted. We need to know where it is, offshore and onshore; we need to understand the commercial viability of extraction, and thus the possible extent of applications for extraction; and we need to understand the negative environmental impact of extraction that might arise, in all its detail. I have much sympathy with residents in areas that could be affected who are asking legitimate questions about the environmental impact. Their concerns need clear answers. I think that this means there is a need for a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose, understandable to the general public, transparent and independent of commercial interests.
These issues all relate primarily to shale extraction policies—but, as we have heard, the role of shale in promoting security of supply remains a major consideration. I believe that we have to reduce energy imports. We have become over-reliant on North Sea output, which is declining, and on imports, which have grown over the past decade. The Department of Energy and Climate Change estimates that we could be importing three-quarters of our gas before 2030. We heard some convincing evidence that home-produced shale gas would displace imported gas rather than displacing renewable energy and would reduce the need for coal to be used more, with all the impacts of that on carbon targets. I want to be clear that I think that we have to maintain investment in renewables because shale gas cannot be the answer to all our energy needs—but shale can give the renewables sector time to grow.
I was impressed when hearing evidence from the British Geological Survey, which was cautious, refusing to jump to immediate conclusions on the capacity for extraction. It said, though, that 40 times the annual UK gas use should be extractable from the Bowland-Hodder area in the north of England. But as we conclude in paragraph 70, there are no well grounded assessments of economically recoverable reserves of shale gas, and we need to know what that potential is.
Mention has been made of the USA, and there are some comparisons that can be made. However, we have to remember that there are large differences between this country and the USA in the scale of the land area; experience and expertise; regulation; and landowner rights. Still, we can learn from the US experience, and I have become increasingly concerned about reports from the USA of a rising tide of opposition to shale extraction. We read recently in the Financial Times of rising public opposition to fracking in Colorado on environmental grounds. There are accusations that shale extraction is industrialising rural landscapes and being committed in city suburbs very close to people’s homes. North Dakota, another state that has substantial shale extraction, and which is perhaps more remote, is clearly facing social pressures, not least the very high cost of housing.
We say in our report that the development of shale gas cannot go ahead without public acceptance. We say that shale development has to be properly regulated and that we must reduce or eliminate risk, and I agree. But I want to express support for the rights of local people in areas that have been or could be subject to licensing applications. Such local concerns are understandable and must be clearly answered because fracking must be safe.
Public concerns relate to issues around ground-water contamination, flow-back water, tremors, noise, traffic, fugitive methane and destruction of the countryside. These all need clear answers. Fugitive methane, as the report indicates, can leap from well-heads during the extraction process or when being transported. As we say in the report, this will need to be monitored, even though levels of fugitive methane emissions are estimated to be similar to conventional gas production.
Concerns that ground-water contamination could arise from chemicals in the fluid used to fracture the rock have also been made. In the USA, leaks from faulty shale gas and oil wells have contaminated water supplies, but fracking itself is not to blame. Well integrity is essential. The Royal Society, as I think we have heard, and the Royal Academy of Engineering have told us that none of the claims of contaminated water shows evidence of chemicals found in hydraulic fluids. Cuadrilla said in its evidence that 99.95% of its fracking fluid is water and sand. The other 0.05% is polyacrylamide, as used in cosmetics. The regulators would need to confirm that this continues to be accurate to allay any public concerns. Concerns about flow-back water, traffic noise and impact on the natural environment are very understandable—which is why effective regulation is so important.
Some have given the public the impression—not in your Lordships’ House—that this report is calling for relaxation of fracking regulations. It most certainly is not. The trouble is that the regulatory system is so confusing even though we have a tighter regulatory regime than the USA—and I think it is pretty clear from all the evidence we have received that we do. That regulatory regime has to be applied and it has to be seen to be applied. The operators say it is a complex system, but it is complex for the general public, too. I support streamlining the system to make it more robust.
There are three different UK bodies responsible for licensing and regulating above and beyond the planning system. The Department of Energy and Climate Change issues exploratory licences, requires environmental risk assessment, approves hydraulic fracturing plans and grants final consent to drill to mitigate the risk of induced tremors. The Environment Agency grants environmental permits, jointly inspects well sites with the Health and Safety Executive and is responsible for mitigating risks to public health. The Health and Safety Executive approves well design and jointly inspects well sites with the Environment Agency to prevent ground-water contamination.
I find the relationship somewhat confusing and wonder how it can work in practice, which is why the report’s recommendations to identify a lead regulator to oversee all stages of licensing is important and why we should consolidate all regulatory provisions relating to onshore oil and gas development into one clearly titled set of regulations. My last point is that there should be an explicit recognition in the regulations that well examiners must be independent of the well operator—not appointed by the operator. This would create a more robust and more transparent regulatory system, because nothing less will build public confidence.
In conclusion, we have heard about the potential benefits; the difficulty is that we do not know how great those are. We think that energy-intensive industries might grow. We think that there will be benefits to the balance of payments and to tax revenues, but the truth is the benefits will be unknown until exploratory drilling takes place. We need that evidence but we also need strict environmental protection in place in the areas affected.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, our new chairman—who I welcome most warmly to a job that he has been carrying out with aplomb and finesse—and my noble friend Lord Shipley in paying tribute to my old and noble friend Lord MacGregor. He knows what a high regard I have for him. From the bottom of my heart, I thank him for his brilliant service as chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee. The report that we are debating was the last report produced under his chairmanship. It is an excellent report and he deserves more credit than anybody else for it, and for the other reports that we have done.
It is well over 30 years since I was Energy Secretary, and since then I have followed the energy scene quite closely. In all that time, I have never known as big a game-changer as the technological revolution which has made it possible to extract economically the vast amount of shale gas and shale oil distributed over the world. Geologists—and all of us, I think—have long known that this existed, but there was not a means of extracting it commercially and economically. Such means now exists and it is a huge game-changer. As has been pointed out, there has been a game-change in the American economy and it has dramatically changed the strength of the American economy. Indeed, the main reason why the American economy has recovered considerably better from the banking meltdown of 2008 than the European economy has, despite the subprime crisis and all the banking difficulties, is the development of shale gas and shale oil in the United States.
It is not just a game-changer for the American economy; it has been a game-changer for the world energy scene. I have never been a believer in the peak oil thesis. When I was appointed Energy Secretary in 1981, one of the first things I did was to ask the chairmen of the two British-based oil majors—Shell and BP—to come and see me. They came to see me and I said, “Tell me what I need to know”. They said, “The first thing you need to know, Secretary of State, is that there are only 30 years of commercially exploitable oil left in the world”. That was in 1981, 33 years ago, but it has always been like that. They never need to look beyond 30 years in their plans, so why should they be interested in beyond 30 years?
It is true that, through a thoroughly incompetent energy policy—I shall not go into it now as I am sure there will be another occasion to do so—we have managed to get very close to peak electricity in this country. However, that is a different matter altogether. Oil and gas have never been in greater abundance in the world. We see that in the declining prices of oil and gas, which are highly beneficial to all those who use energy—not that it ever happens in this country. Unlike other countries, prices have not fallen in this country. Again, that is because of the energy policy that I alluded to earlier. However, shale has completely changed the global energy scene.
The question now—and this is what our report addresses—is whether shale could be just as big a game-changer for the United Kingdom. The answer is that we do not know. The British Geological Survey has shown that the actual mineral resources of shale gas and shale oil in the United Kingdom, particularly the Bowland shale, in the north-west and particularly in Lancashire, are absolutely massive. The Bowland seam is a particularly thick one, which is good.
The potential for something possibly on the scale of North Sea oil and gas—which is now in decline—is before us. On the other hand, some people say that it might be very much less. Nobody knows because nothing has happened. Until the exploratory drilling takes place it is impossible to know whether we have the biggest bonanza since North Sea oil and gas or something rather small. We need to find out. It is all very well for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wax enthusiastic about UK oil and shale but we need action, not words. So far it has been all talk and no action.
The problem lies partly in the lack of real interest or enthusiasm but more particularly because of the nature of our regulatory system. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Shipley on only one point—when he referred to the regulatory system in the United States. There is no regulatory system in the United States. The United States has decided that this should be at the discretion of the individual states, so each individual state has its own policy towards shale and its own regulatory system. That is why, in some states, they have developed shale tremendously; in others they have not developed it at all. The regulatory systems vary considerably in efficacy from state to state. It is pretty good on the whole, but not in all of them.
A proper regulatory system is needed here, as it is in many other areas, such as—to confine myself to energy—for nuclear power. We have a good, strong and rigorous regulatory system for nuclear power. We need a similar system here but we do not need anything as cumbersome, as inefficient or as time-consuming in this case because it creates an almost impossible barrier.
The biggest company seeking to operate in this country is Cuadrilla, in which Centrica has about a 30% stake. After almost interminable talks and discussions, five months ago, Cuadrilla put in a complex, detailed planning application for two wells in Lancashire to Lancashire County Council. It has now been told that it has to wait for another three months. After that, there will probably be a further delay. That is just Lancashire County Council. The Environment Agency is equally slow moving. There is enthusiasm in words but not in deeds from DECC. So nothing happens at all.
We took evidence on the environmental issues, as my noble friend Lord MacGregor said. Under pressure, it became quite clear that the nature of the objectors’ objection was to fossil fuels in principle, despite the fact that gas has only half the carbon emissions of coal. The environmental objections are all completely spurious. I will mention three. First, there are the so-called earthquakes. These are minor tremors which happen from time to time. They are considerably less than the tremors that regularly occur both in coal mining and in nature. They are about on the scale of a heavy lorry passing along the road—that sort of thing. Then there is the contamination of groundwater. That would be very difficult to achieve, even if you wanted to, considering that fracking happens at least a mile if not more below the surface, while the groundwater is, as its name implies, near the ground. The risk of contamination from one to the other is negligible—it is nonsense; in fact, it is zero. As for the chemicals, as my noble friend Lord Shipley says, dangerous chemicals are not used in the mixture that Cuadrilla proposes and which will be used elsewhere. It is 99.95% water and sand and 0.05% polyacrylamide, which is widely used in the manufacture of cosmetics. No dangerous chemicals are involved in the slightest.
We have got to get to grips with this problem—which is impeding this development, this possible huge game-changer for the British economy—of the regulatory system. Again, shale is a game-changer in a particular way. Some points have already been mentioned but I will mention just one other which has not. North Sea gas is running down and we are going to be reliant on imported gas. I am not concerned about the so-called security problem of imported gas. However, the only way that you can import gas is first to have it liquefied into liquid natural gas, which is a very expensive process; and then when it comes to the country of destination—to this country—it has to be gasified again, which is also very expensive. Therefore the overall transport cost of gas is far higher than the transport cost of anything else because of the process that it has to go through. The Government have to get their act together.
As my noble friend Lord MacGregor said, we proposed that a government committee or Cabinet sub-committee should put everybody together in order to knock heads together, but that was rejected by DECC. There is an extraordinary number of Cabinet sub-committees dealing with totally trivial matters but there is no Cabinet committee or sub-committee dealing with something as important as shale. That is despite the fact that a large number of different departments—this is why onshore is different from offshore, which involved just the energy department—have a locus and their own point of view, and a number of government agencies also have a locus. If anything needs co-ordination, this does. People used to talk about joined-up Government. How about joining up the governance of shale? Nothing could be less joined up than it is at present. People have decided that it is not worth investing in UK shale if you cannot even get to the exploration stage. Other countries, such as China and Argentina, are going ahead with it—America is by no means the only one although it was first in the field—and we are left languishing behind.
Many people recognise that there is a malaise in this country. It might not exist exclusively in this country but it is certainly here. There is a great gulf between the people and the elites. Elites are needed, but they are needed to provide leadership in the interest of the people, and the people do not feel that they are acting in their interest at present. We could make a start in changing that by making the development of UK shale “an urgent national priority”, to quote the concluding words of our report—and we did not say that lightly. Action, not words, is needed, and not just for the economy. It might restore a sense of optimism in place of the debilitating pessimism that is so prevalent in our country at present.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, who so ably chaired the Economic Affairs Committee during its consideration of the report.
The evidence we heard convinced us that the Government should create opportunities for shale development and persuade the public of its desirability. We were convinced for five main reasons. A thriving shale gas industry will contribute to our commitment to reduce our carbon imprint and to mitigating the effects of climate change. The environmental impact of fracking will not be damaging in the way it has sometimes been portrayed—most of my speech will be on that. Moving towards greater self-sufficiency and less dependence on importing our energy supply will have advantages for energy security, and for our balance of payments and tax revenues. New jobs will be created, a substantial proportion of them outside London and the south-east. The longer-term benefits of developing and retaining energy-intensive industries was also something that we thought important.
I will expand on the first of those reasons, the impact on climate change. I endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Hollick. While the case for renewables is strong, they are expensive and they are a long-term solution. However, the exploration and exploitation of the extensive reserves of shale gas in the UK should be seen not as an alternative to renewables but as an additional source of energy that is much superior to burning coal. The carbon footprint of shale gas extraction is about half that of coal. That is a huge benefit that it would be irresponsible to ignore.
I will now focus on the environment, mainly because that is the issue about which there has been some public disquiet, as well as quite a lot of misinformation. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, in considering the issues we can learn from the experience of the US, although it is important to recognise that there are differences, not least in the location of US shale in the wide-open spaces of relatively remote rural areas.
The committee took this issue very seriously and received extensive scientific evidence from a variety of government and independent sources, as has been said. We were convinced that the potential long-term benefits of shale gas outweigh any potential environmental damage in a well regulated system. It was therefore somewhat disappointing to read the strident reaction to the report from a couple of the green environmental groups, which seem unwilling to adapt their views in the light of the evidence.
On the claim that ground-water will be polluted by the chemicals used in fracking fluid by operators, we were convinced that there is no reason why that should happen in the UK. The regulators here do not allow the use of hazardous chemicals. The companies concerned have clearly set out their intentions to avoid their use. As long as the regulators insist on enforcing the prohibition, there is no risk to ground-water from fracking fluid.
On the escape of methane into ground-water, leading to flames coming out of taps when they are turned on, we accepted evidence from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. The risk of methane migrating up natural faults in aquifers is hard to imagine. However, it is important that wells are properly constructed and well sealed. The Environment Agency is well aware of the need to ensure this. Nor did the committee accept the claims of the Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association that wastewater treatment from fracking would not be safe. We were convinced that the low percentage of wastewater from fracking—estimated to be about 3%—could be handled by the tough regulatory system already in place for mining.
The claim that water shortages would arise as a result of shale gas development has also been greatly exaggerated. The demand for water from the operators will be similar to that from other industrial users. Moreover, technological advances will allow the use of saline water and recycling of flow-back water, reducing the need for fresh water. It is inconceivable that the regulators would allow levels of water consumption that would threaten supply to households.
Perhaps the most serious misinformation is about the threat of earthquakes from fracking. The scientific evidence is clear that the likelihood of tremors from fracking is negligible and that their magnitude is likely to be so small as to be—I repeat the quotation cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—
“no worse than a heavy lorry driving past the house”,
in the words of one of the scientists who gave evidence to the committee.
It is, however, important that any risk of seismic activity should be mitigated by strong regulatory controls. All the evidence that we heard about the stringent measures that are in place was compelling. We took evidence from the Health and Safety Executive and others about air pollution, which might have an effect on public health. Again, the conclusion of a review by Public Health England of all the evidence on the risk to public health of both air emissions and radon levels in people’s homes was convincing. Once again, with proper regulation the effects would be very small.
This brings me to the last of the possible environmental effects: traffic and noise pollution. Here, the committee accepted that there would be some disruption to local communities from increased traffic, as with any industrial activity. Two things follow from this. First, the planning procedures in local authorities and the environmental permit provided by the environmental regulators must mitigate these effects through requirements on noise levels. Secondly, the operators must work with local communities to provide compensation for the disruption through the industry’s community benefit scheme, to which they are already committed and to which they must be held.
I have argued that the environmental disadvantages of fracking have been exaggerated, leading to unnecessary public disquiet. It is important that the Government tackle these unwarranted fears, and they need to do so along with the regulators and the industry.
I conclude by saying that it is vital that we have a strong regulatory system in place. Everything that I have said about the environment requires this. This may mean that in a few areas the existing environmental regulations and voluntary measures from industry need some strengthening, if only to reassure the public. The Environment Agency will in any case have to take on additional work to regulate the industry. Will the Minister reassure us that it will have adequate resources to do so, and will the principle of full cost recovery from the industry be applied?
As other speakers have said, we also need an efficient and well run system, as well as one which is rigorous and thorough. As the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said at the beginning, we were not convinced that the current system is sufficiently clear. There is a lack of transparency and it is overcomplex. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to these concerns when she replies.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I, too, begin by congratulating the committee on this excellent report. As has already been pointed out, it is the last in a long line of distinguished reports produced under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord MacGregor. I am honoured to have been a member of the committee for part of the time that he was chairman, so I can, with great sincerity, pay my tribute to the skills that he deployed in that role, to which others have referred.
My noble friend Lord Lawson referred to his background in the energy industry. I have a background which goes back further even than his, although it is of a less distinguished nature. Back in the 1960s, I was energy editor of the Financial Times. In that capacity, I covered the discovery and development of North Sea oil—and how very exciting that was for a young journalist. It was exciting for me but it was also very exciting for the country. I remember clearly how something which at first seemed like a dream came true, and how what seemed as though it might be a peripheral contribution to the national economy turned into a major contribution. I remember how first the Wilson Government and then the Heath Government did everything possible to encourage the development of this great new resource. When I was energy editor of the FT, which was before my noble friend was Secretary of State, world oil reserves were reckoned to last for 20 years, not even 30 years. That gives some idea of the importance that the North Sea assumed in the national imagination.
As has been pointed out, we do not know whether shale gas or even shale oil reserves will have anything like the impact on the British and wider European economy that the North Sea has had. The one point that I really want to make in this short speech is that it is of major importance that we determine whether we have a real bonanza lying under our island or something less important. If it is something very important we cannot let the opportunity slip: it would not only be of great significance to the British and the wider European economy but would also contribute, as the discoveries in the United States have done, to depressing the oil price and reducing the dependence of this country and the economies in the rest of the EU—which play such an important role in our prosperity or otherwise—on those suppliers. To the extent that it would help other countries it would help us. To the extent that developments in this country could encourage developments in other countries, the benefit of shale gas would be increased.
As my noble friend Lord Shipley and others have pointed out, the environment must be effectively safeguarded and a stringent safety regime put in place. That applied in the North Sea. There were many people then who argued that it would be impossible. The predecessors of some of the organisations that gave evidence of a rather doleful and pessimistic nature to the Select Committee were saying exactly the same things back in the 1960s, but an effective safety regime was put in place. The North Sea environment has also been sufficiently safeguarded.
Due account must also be taken of the economic interests and the quality of life of those who live in the areas where production takes place. It has, however, been pointed out several times that we are not talking about the sort of massive disruption that coal mines constituted in the 19th century or the early 20th century; we are talking about inconvenience of a much more modest nature.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My noble friend referred to the effects on the areas where this is taking place. I am sure that he will agree that in the United States some of the most impoverished parts there have, as a result of the development of shale gas, been enormously enriched. In the case of England it is fortunate that the big deposits of gas are in the north, and everyone agrees that it would be great if we could strengthen the economy there. There is a huge plus for areas where this takes place, which is very important.
Lord Tugendhat
I certainly agree with my noble friend. I was going to touch on a related point, which I will now make. One of the most disagreeable things about many of the protests against the development of shale gas is that they come from prosperous people in prosperous areas, and these people may very well prejudice the development of a resource that would help less prosperous people in less prosperous areas. I agree that the regime must safeguard as far as possible the quality of life of the people in the areas concerned, but it would be quite intolerable if a small minority of people in the most well-to-do parts of the country was allowed to prevent the development of a resource which could have such a very great and beneficial impact on the country as a whole—and, as my noble friend said, in particular on that part of the country which has benefited least from the great development of the British economy over the last 20 to 30 years.
If we do not get ahead with exploiting this possibility we will be doing a great disservice to the nation. Nobody can foresee the future but we know that the electricity margin of safety is now so tight that supplies might well be interrupted during the winter. We are investing huge sums in renewables and in nuclear power, but when will they make a decisive contribution? As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, pointed out, the cost in the case of nuclear power will be very considerable indeed.
Can we be sure that we and our European Union partners will never again be blackmailed by Russian or Middle Eastern suppliers, or that we will never suffer interruptions as a result of war or civil disorder? One only has to consider these possibilities to realise the importance not just in terms of our prosperity but in terms of our security of developing a new natural resource. If things go wrong and we are not safeguarding our future, the people who will suffer will be the least prosperous people because it will be impossible to keep our manufacturing industry going at the rate at which it could have been kept going if power supplies act as a brake instead of an accelerator on national economic development.
Looking back to the 1960s when development of the North Sea began we have a great deal to learn from the foresight, enthusiasm and political courage of those who made sure that we had a regulatory regime that enabled companies to go forward and develop those resources. All of us have benefited from that and I hope that in 50 years’ time, those who are sitting here will be able to say the same for the present.
Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure whether anyone will be sitting here in 50 years’ time.
I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, for introducing this debate and join all my colleagues in thanking him for his excellent chairing of the Economic Affairs Select Committee over the past four years. I also want to thank our clerk, Mr Bill Sinton, and wish him well in his retirement, and Professor Nick Butler, our very knowledgeable specialist adviser. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, successfully contrived to get the committee members to produce unanimous reports during his term. That is a commendable record given the contentiousness of the subjects investigated by the committee. That, of course, includes the question of shale gas and oil, which is the topic of today’s debate.
In the wider context of the UK’s energy supplies, it must be recognised that successive Governments over many years have abysmally failed to produce effective and coherent energy policies. The cumulative result, as my noble friend Lord Shipley said, is that our energy supplies are now at their lowest level in the living memory of most people. Recently, it has been reported that the margin is down to a mere 4%. Long may the recent mild weather continue, to avoid another catastrophic supply failure if a severe cold snap occurs. Some of us recall what happened in 1947, and more will recall the shivering conditions at the turn of the year in 1962-63.
The very feeble response from the Government to our report revealed a lack of urgency bordering on irresponsibility by Ministers that is frankly unacceptable. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, pointed out, “energy requires energy”, to coin a phrase. If successive Governments have found it impossible to produce a coherent, credible and robust energy strategy that would endure in the medium term, perhaps the obvious approach is to spread the risks by fostering a diversity of energy resources that would embrace nuclear, solar, wind and tidal power and, now, shale. As has been remarked, all sources have their advantages and drawbacks and all, of course, are subject to the vagaries of both climate change and prices in the international markets. The recent developments that have enabled the exploitation of shale deposits as a source of oil and gas, most noticeably in the USA, have added to the range of supplies of which we should seek to take advantage.
The case for shale, as the committee points out, is not without its problems. The fracking methods involved contain potential environmental dangers, but it is said that fracking may also lead to an excessive demand for water and the possibility of its pollution. Disturbances caused by greater use of lorry traffic and the fumes and noise emitted, together with toxic gas escapes, are all risks that need to be assessed, properly regulated and kept under continuous review by both the industry and government. That is only common sense. However, as many noble Lords have remarked, the risks have to be placed alongside the advantages that are likely to accrue from shale exploitation. Very important among these would be lessening the UK’s dependence on foreign supplies, particularly prudent in the increasingly turbulent times we are currently witnessing. There would be increases in employment and great benefits for our energy-intensive and petrochemical industries. This would help to promote the UK’s manufacturing capacity, which is much needed if we are to reduce our economic reliance on the financial services sector of the economy.
There is now an urgent need to commence shale extraction, not least to ascertain more accurately the extent of our potential reserves. Time is of the essence. The vast majority of people will want to secure our energy supplies overall, including shale exploitation. However, there is likely to be a strong element of nimbyism among the public, which will be played upon by pressure groups who—in principle and never mind the evidence—are totally opposed to shale exploitation whatever the safeguards imposed. The Government and their successors should offer the necessary guarantees to rebut nimbyism and encourage the creation of a fracking industry to exploit the use of shale as a new source of energy.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, the report of the Economic Affairs Committee is extremely sensible. It quite rightly stresses the urgency with which the Government must act to start the shale revolution. We have seen what economic benefits gas extraction can bring. North Dakota’s economy grew by 13.4% in 2012, according to a report by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. That was nearly three times the next fastest state, Texas, and dwarfed the national average of 2.5%. I would love to see that kind of growth in the north-west and other regions of the UK. However, the community benefit schemes seem to be a tax pretending to be something else. Are local councils the winners here, rather than local people?
By giving these taxes a nice name, we seem to be just trying to make them more acceptable, although one up side is that this shows that tax has become a dirty word. However, it just goes to show that Governments devising new taxes would rather not call them what they are. Most key services are funded through a central government grant anyway, so it would be a tragedy if new revenues were used badly, or squandered on pet projects. Therefore, these community benefit schemes may mean that the central grant is reduced, leading to a further reliance on hidden revenue streams such as this. Of course, those living in an area that sees a boom from gas extraction should benefit, and they will. Shale extraction will bring new industry, more jobs, more skills and knock-on growth for the whole local economy. It just seems to me that the local authority need not be the conduit for those benefits, as I am not convinced that the proposed methods will actually benefit people as much as they should.
We should also consider the environmental benefits of shale extraction as an economic opportunity. It has been estimated, most notably by Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital, that the cost of renewing our energy infrastructure and implementing both the EU carbon reduction strategy and our own renewables strategy will run into the hundreds of billions of pounds. In short, meeting renewables targets and pursuing them with inefficient methods of energy production will be very expensive.
The environmental benefits of fracking should not be forgotten. As an excellent paper by Professor Richard Muller for the Centre for Policy Studies found, shale gas extraction can reduce not only greenhouse gas emissions but a deadly air pollution known as PM2.5. It is currently killing more than 3 million people each year worldwide, primarily in the developing world, where traditional fossil fuels are still burnt in larger proportions than in the western world.
Of course, the IPCC announced just last week that the use of fossil fuels should be phased out entirely by the end of the century. But even if the IPCC’s target was feasible—or desirable—surely the switch from coal to natural gas must be encouraged as soon as possible. Perhaps we can then rethink our energy mix—and relieve taxpayers and bill payers of the burden of massive subsidies for inefficient methods of energy production.
We should not forget that climate change is a global issue. The volume of CO2 produced worldwide is the problem, not just the amount produced in the UK. The task is huge. What we do here is of course important, but a year’s worth of reducing our CO2 emissions would be wiped out in a matter of days by China’s energy growth. That is why time is of the essence with regard to shale extraction, and we should be sharing the technology across the globe.
Perhaps the most important benefit of getting on with shale extraction will come from increased energy security. At the moment Europe imports about 30% of its natural gas from Russia—and the Russians certainly want it to stay that way. At a global economic conference last year, Putin said fracking means that, “black stuff comes out of the tap”. He has also previously said that shale extraction would directly reduce Europe’s competitiveness, as it would be “more expensive” than Russian gas and oil. That indicates he is worried about Europe breaking free of dependence on Russian resources. Again, we can look elsewhere to see how crucial it is to break that dependence.
On current projections, America will be energy self-sufficient by 2035, with some predicting it might come even sooner. The pattern is the same elsewhere. Estonia is the world’s first country to meet all its power needs from shale gas. It even has enough left over for fuel exports for the shipping industry. We should be doing all we can to emulate that here.
The Economic Affairs Committee made a very sensible suggestion; namely, its recommendation that a Cabinet committee should be established to ensure that the Prime Minister’s commitment to shale gas extraction is matched with action. But the Government’s weak response is easily mistaken for that of a Civil Service that does not understand the importance of action. Will my noble friend the Minister assure me that that is not the case?
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and members of the committee on their report, and on using the term “fracking” only once in it, thereby skirting some of the corny humour that could otherwise ensue. Other noble Lords have not been quite so parsimonious in this respect.
We live in a world of huge risks, most of which we have created for ourselves. Irrevocable climate change is one of them. Yet at the same time this is a period of massive technological innovation, much of it positive and most of it global in implication. The shale gas revolution—and I would not hesitate to call it that—is a very interesting and consequential example. Its roots stretch back some 60 years. The Breakthrough Institute in the United States has demonstrated that it would not have come about without a history of federal intervention and support, just as in the case of the internet. George Mitchell’s extraordinary accomplishments would not have been possible without that.
The Breakthrough Institute pioneered the thinking that became the basis of President Obama’s climate change policy. It is one based more on technology than on any legal framework. Essentially, it is progressive replacement of coal as a source of energy by gas, with shale gas to the fore, and by renewables. The US, as the report notes, as a consequence has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions substantially in recent years.
I would dissent from very few of the points and recommendations made in this admirable and thorough report. I note the Government’s positive response to it. I would like, however, to add to it by mentioning further lessons to be taken from the American experience. These, I feel, are not stressed enough in the report, and I draw attention to three here.
First—this echoes partly what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said—the successful cultivation of shale gas need not and must not distract from investment in renewable energy. Here I disagree a bit with what the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said. In the United States it has certainly not done so. Wind and solar have seen dramatic advances. More than 50% of the new US energy sources installed in the first half of 2014 consisted of renewables, including hydro. The cost of wind power has dropped, on average, by 40% in the United States over the past four years. Advances are being made in reducing the impact of intermittency. Texas is a pioneer in shale gas, but it is also a national leader in wind power—and why not?
Secondly, contrary to what many people here seem to think, “Not in my backyard” has been a major problem with shale gas in the United States, and we should reflect on that very carefully. Shale gas production has been implemented mainly in regions in the US where drilling for oil and gas or open-cast mining were already very familiar. Those are the regions in which it has been readily accepted. In other parts of the country, such as New York State, Michigan or California, and not only in prosperous areas, it has met with fierce resistance. I think the same or worse could happen here. After all, this is a small country, about the same size as California, which is only one state among 50 in the US. If we are not very careful, “Not in my backyard” could sink the whole show. The American experience on this, not just on a macro level but on a micro level, therefore, should be studied in detail and with great care.
Thirdly, the American experience shows that “Not in my backyard” so far as shale gas is concerned does not derive only from prejudice and misinformation, although there is a lot of that around. If successful, the American evidence shows, shale gas production changes the nature of local communities more than renewable energy. It can also expose them to a cycle of boom and bust. Providing economic incentives for local communities to accept shale gas exploration and production is therefore not enough. I do not think government policy in this area is sufficient. More rounded forms of community involvement and planning are needed. I strongly advise the Government to enrich their community policy on the basis of research available from the United States, which has to look in comparable areas to those which we have in this country. I would be pleased if the noble Baroness would respond to those three points.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and his committee on their powerful and evidence-based report. I declare my interests in the energy sector as listed in the register, but I do not think that they include shale gas.
The title of the report is The Economic Impact on UK Energy Policy of Shale Gas and Oil. There has already been a significant impact on UK energy policy even without pumping a teaspoon of shale oil or a cubic metre of gas in this country.
As my noble friend Lord MacGregor said, America’s shale revolution has driven down the price of fossil-fuel energy. It has pushed Qatari and Algerian oil out of the US market, and has done the same for coal and oil, which benefits the UK by lowering energy prices generally. The US has doubled its oil output in six years as a result of the shale revolution. It has overtaken Saudi Arabia as an oil producer. A McKinsey report last year said that the effect of shale gas and oil on the US economy will be such that, by 2020, the economy will be $500 billion to the better, representing 3% of GDP, and it will have 1.7 million extra jobs. These are enormous impacts. And, of course, the oil price is down: from $115 per barrel to about $85 now, and falling further. That is largely because of the shale revolution.
World gas prices have come down despite the fact that the Fukushima accident and Middle East turmoil in recent years would normally have been things that pushed them up, as would the economic recovery. UK wholesale gas prices are down to levels last seen about four years ago. That is largely because of the US shale revolution. As my noble friend Lord Lawson said, shale is definitely a game-changer.
So, yes, we have already felt some benefits from shale, but not nearly as much as we could have felt. That is for several reasons. The first is that we have backed the wrong horse in the decarbonisation race. As my noble friend Lord Borwick and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, the US has cut its carbon dioxide emissions, using gas to replace coal, by three times more than Europe has cut its carbon emissions using solar and wind. Whereas decarbonisation has cost Europe hundreds of billions of dollars, US decarbonisation with shale gas has benefited that economy to the tune of $200 billion. In 2010, the Department of Energy and Climate Change forecast that there would be a doubling of gas prices by 2020. They are now falling, and every fall puts up the subsidy cost of renewable energy and therefore, in effect, insulates us against falling world energy prices.
The second reason for our not having been able to benefit as much as we could from the shale gas revolution is that gas costs a lot to transport by sea, as my noble friend Lord Lawson said. Therefore, even if US gas prices fall, we will not see the full benefit over here—it is not like oil; it is not a fungible commodity with one world price. So we have to produce domestic gas to get the full benefit of lower gas prices. But we have twiddled our thumbs and listened to every discredited theory about environmental harm from shale, including fugitive emissions, flaming taps, aquifer pollution, damaging earthquakes, radioactivity and heavy water use. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, these have been greatly exaggerated.
I hear it said that there has been exaggeration at both ends of the spectrum: that people have exaggerated the potential benefits of this technology as well as its potential environmental drawbacks. I do not think that this is true. Shale’s boosters have, if anything, been found to underplay its impact; they have been too cautious—and I know because I was one of them. Back in early 2011, I went to Pennsylvania, found out what was going on, wrote a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation of my noble friend Lord Lawson, and worried when it came out that I was overhyping this revolution. But, in fact, if you go and look at what I wrote, you will see that I was far too cautious about what was going to happen. Had we pushed ahead then with shale gas in this country we could have been roaring now.
The third reason why we have not fully benefited from falling world energy prices in this country—and I hate to bring an element of partisan disagreement to this thoroughly bipartisan debate so far—is the impact of last year’s announcement by the leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, of an energy price freeze. I would be very interested to hear the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to this point. It had the effect of telling energy companies that it would not be a good idea to drop their prices now lest Labour win the election next year. Paul Massara, the head of npower, said in August:
“Then we are acutely aware that if the Labour Party were to implement their proposed price freeze, we will be living with the consequences of our standard rate tariff price for a very long time and beyond the level of risk that we could manage in the wholesale market”.
The effect of our policies has been that we have, to some extent, insulated ourselves in this country against the benefit of falling oil and gas prices. As a result, we face a real economic threat from the shale gas revolution: the threat that the reshoring of energy-intensive jobs to the United States will leave us without so many opportunities in those industries. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, technology in this industry is getting better all the time. There is no sign of diminishing returns in the improvement of shale; the drilling time per well is down by two-thirds, compared with six years ago in the Fayetteville shale. Gas production per day is eight times as high today in the Marcellus shale as it was in the beginning. Oil production is five times as high in the Bakken as it was a few years ago. The break-even price at which shale is profitable is coming down all the time and is somewhere around $60 a barrel for oil now. It is nonsense to say that this revolution could not happen quickly in this country and could not have a big impact over a relatively short number of years.
What about shale in this country? We thought that there was not very much to start with, but we now know, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that we possibly have enough to last us for 40 years if it is economically recoverable. We have one of the biggest, thickest and highest quality shales in the world. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said, it exists in an area with high unemployment. In parts of North Dakota where shale oil is being exploited, the unemployment rate is 0.8%.
I will make a few suggestions for the Minister to consider. First, as has already been said, we need to address the streamlining of permitting. We have to be able to drill many wells, because we will not get the recipe right the first time—or at least the industry will not. It was clearly mentioned in the report that you cannot be required to file a separate application every time you drill a well: you have to be able to drill several.
Secondly, there is no incentive at the moment for local government application- handling to be quick. There is nothing to prevent it delaying applications—as we heard in the case of Cuadrilla in Lancashire—several times. Thirdly, we need to keep an incentive in this country to burn gas as electricity. At the moment, we have brand new gas stations that are being mothballed to make way for renewables—indeed, sometimes to make way for coal, which surely is madness. It is important that the Government encourage the use of gas as a heating fuel. That is something that we obviously use a lot of at the moment, but there has been a lot of talk about displacing gas with electric heating in the future. I do not think that is an efficient way to do it, either economically or environmentally. A statement saying that there is a great future for gas in this country would help the industry.
In conclusion, shale gas has already had a big impact, but not as big as it could have had. Letting others do it and not doing it ourselves is a threat to us as well as an opportunity. We must get an energy policy that does not insulate us from falling energy prices.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, before we hear the winding-up speeches, and although my name is not on the list of speakers, I would like to make a few brief remarks. Before I do so, like others, I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding chairmanship of my noble friend Lord MacGregor. He was very fair and even-handed—and he was determined, when there was an issue that we were not sure about, to really get to the bottom of it. He was frankly a huge pleasure to work with.
I will make three points. First, I emphasise once again the huge benefits that there potentially are—and not just the benefits of oil and gas coming out of the ground, but the secondary benefits because of falling energy prices. One of the most remarkable things we found in producing the report was the impact on the petrochemical industry in America. There had been no new investment in petrochemicals for 25 years in the US; now, 11 major facilities are under construction and seven are in the planning phase. The reason for this is that production of oil and gas has gone along with the production of products such as ethane, propane, butane and the higher alkalines. In fact, it has been so successful that European producers are reported to be moving their operations to the US.
Secondly, I have found the arguments of those who oppose fracking unconvincing. The reason is that I never felt that they were based on evidence: they were based on opinion. They raise important issues. Fracking involves legitimate concerns, which all of us should be interested in and respect. Fracking involves risks, which we have to manage, and we should not brush them under the carpet. They have been mentioned this evening.
The committee examined each one of them in detail, and our conclusion, which, by and large, is very supportive of fracking, was backed by the best available research from technical experts in the field. We discovered that some of the concerns were not really an issue. On those that were, we discovered that, in the UK, we have a strong, detailed and rigorous regulatory framework through which we can manage those risks.
Thirdly, I have a personal view that does not come out in the report. I have found a great contrast between those giving evidence from the US—from US citizens—and those giving evidence from the countries which make up the United Kingdom. For the US people, the cup was always half full; for too many of our fellow citizens, the cup was half empty. The US people involved in the industry showed an enthusiasm, urgency and intensity which, I have to say, was lacking in colleagues from this country.
The result is that we have a section in the report that refers, in my noble friend Lord Lawson’s phrase, to moving at a snail’s pace. That sums up the problem. The Government have made very clear that they support fracking. However, their intention has become mired in a cautious bureaucracy. There is a great prize to be won, as so many people have said. I think that now, as a matter of urgency, the process of exploration and development must be made quicker, simpler and easier.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, on the production of his last report for the committee and thank all noble Lords for their contribution to the debate this evening.
I want to inject a note of optimism. I do not often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, but in this case I agree that we need to have less pessimism. We are moving along quite rapidly towards a new energy system. I may support the Minister when I say that this is not a simple problem. Moving away from the fossil-based economy that we are used to, where the externalities of the use of those fuels is largely borne by society, to a cleaner, more sustainable future is not simple. There is no silver bullet and no one technology that will deliver the answers—and we do not have a crystal ball, so we have to try to move forward in a diverse way that respects our need to keep costs low and to keep the security of supply strong. That is challenging, but we are making progress.
On shale gas, we have the vocal support of the two most senior politicians in the Government. They have made it very clear that they want to pursue it to find out exactly what resource we may be sitting on. Several noble Lords have rightly pointed out that there is great potential but we do not have very much information at the moment about the total recoverable resource and what it will cost.
Either it might be that the two most powerful men in politics just are not very good at their job—we could debate that—or it must be true that this is a complex issue. Not only energy in general but shale is complex. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed out that we have had gas revolutions in the past. We were fortunate enough to discover North Sea gas. In comparison to shale gas it was quite a simple process: not simple in engineering terms but simple politically, because it took place a large distance from the crowded island that we all share, and it was simply a case of drilling and then the gas was relatively easy to extract. I do not want to trivialise the effort, but in engineering terms it was doable, and in political terms very easy.
Shale is not quite that simple. We do see advances, and it is true that in the US they are learning by doing, and getting better at it. But the very nature of shale is that it is largely onshore, more visible, and it has some environmental implications. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that these have, perhaps, been overemphasised. Nevertheless there is often a grain of truth in many of the concerns, and it is true that the UK has a rich heritage of regulatory standards and a regulatory framework that we should be very proud of.
We will probably not be able to do what they have done in the US: we do not have the same geographic conditions of large open spaces with very few people in them; we do not have the same land ownership rules; and we have a world-class environmental regulatory system. That is not to say that fracking and shale gas cannot be developed in that context, but it is going to be different, and it is going to mean that we will be a bit slower to start, but when we do start, hopefully it will be more sustainable.
I do not want to pick up on all the comments that have been made about the various environmental impacts. Noble Lords will know that in the course of debating the Infrastructure Bill, our party has tabled amendments to encourage the Government to look again at whether we have covered all the bases in our environmental regulations. We will probably return to that issue on Report. The key thing for me is that we are relying on a fairly old regulatory framework. Old is perhaps a relative term but regulations were passed in 1996 that cover “Offshore Installations and Wells”. The title slightly gives it away; they were focused on the offshore industry. It might have been sensible for the Government to look again at those regulations and consider whether, in moving forward on fracking, we did not need a comprehensive review of the regulatory framework and to have had government time given to bringing in those regulations.
We have obviously seen some movement on the trespass issue—again, we will discuss that—but we have not seen enough consideration of some of the unique elements of fracking and shale gas. Those will require changes to the way that our regulatory system is currently conducted, not just to try to harmonise it and make it more efficient but to ensure that we have the absolute integrity of the environmental protection completely encapsulated.
One of the issues that we need to think about is fugitive emissions. A number of noble Lords have mentioned this. This is not to say that it will necessarily be a huge issue but, as we move from a fairly centralised system of extraction of energy resources to one which is quite distributed, we will need to have a careful and well resourced environmental regulatory framework to ensure that fugitive emissions are being properly monitored. One of the key recommendations from the report was that we put that monitoring in place. I think it was Professor MacKay who gave that evidence. The report recommended that it was taken on board that we should have a proper monitoring regime for emissions. It would be a shame if the detractors of shale gas were continually able to say, “Oh but it’s going to be worse than coal”, purely because we do not have the information. It would seem sensible to ensure that that monitoring is there, and that it is well resourced and developed in an independent manner.
I support a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said about the need for independence to build the public’s confidence that this is being done fairly, not in a way that compromises integrity because of a lack of independence. Again, that was a clear recommendation from the report. I would be very interested to see the Minister’s response to the recommendation that those inspecting the integrity of wells should be independent of the company that benefits from them.
This has been a fascinating debate. As I say, we can be reasonably optimistic. We in Europe have moved from a system of energy policy that was very focused on renewables and energy efficiency and, in the time that we have been focusing on those two areas, we have seen quite a lot of development. As much as we might want to cast our eyes westwards to America and see the great impact of shale gas over there, we also ought sometimes to look eastwards at some of the things that are happening on the European continent. There we have seen similarly game-changing technologies coming to market. Indeed, we are part of that with our offshore wind industry and other developments in the renewables sector. These show that we have not reached peak electricity—far from it, actually; we have an abundance of mechanisms for generating electrons now. That is a good thing and that diversity will be a huge strength for Europe.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the energy trilemma. We need to keep our options open. We were right to press Europe to allow us the flexibility to pursue different technologies; if Germany tries to do it one way and we try another, we will benefit from that diversity. As I say, while we do not have a crystal ball, the last couple of decades have seen big advances in people’s understanding of the different ways in which we can improve our security of supply and reduce carbon at the same time. We must always of course focus on keeping costs manageable and reducing them. This is the energy trilemma and that is what we are undertaking.
I feel amazingly privileged to be involved in this debate, which has been a very rich one. I look forward to hearing the Minister but the debate today is symptomatic of other debates that we need. We need to have a sensible, grown-up discussion that is evidence-based rather than getting too dogmatic about particular technologies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, I want to put on record our appreciation of the work of the Economic Affairs Committee for this report. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord MacGregor and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today, as well as to the report, for the opportunity to discuss this really important issue.
We welcome the committee’s conclusion that realising our shale potential in a safe and sustainable way could enhance energy security and provide jobs and opportunities for economic growth. The Government have not been, and are not, complacent about responding quickly and being able to ensure that realising the potential for shale oil and gas is not hindered by unnecessary regulations. I hope that during the passage of my contribution, noble Lords will feel reassured that the Government are taking active steps to ensure that the environment in which this is happening is streamlined as quickly as possible. We are working very closely with other departments.
Home-grown gas, just like home-grown renewables and new nuclear, will of course assist our energy security, be compatible with our climate goals and provide jobs and tax revenue for our society. The Institute of Directors estimated that UK investment in shale gas could, at peak, reach £3.7 billion a year and, as my noble friend Lord MacGregor rightly points out, support 74,000 or 75,000 jobs in the oil, gas, construction, engineering and chemicals sectors, mostly highly skilled and highly paid. The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering and Public Health England have concluded that the risks in shale development are manageable if industry follows best practice, enforced by regulation.
I hope that my comments will illustrate to noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ridley pointed out, that we are supporting every opportunity and taking every action to ensure that opportunities to explore shale gas and oil are there for companies to take advantage of. The Government are putting legislation through this House to ensure that drilling for shale oil and gas can go ahead without undue delay or cost and with the right environmental protections in place. The right to underground access, which is part of the Infrastructure Bill, will simplify the procedure for onshore gas and oil and deep geothermal developers to get underground drilling access. These new rules will help us unlock exploration for shale gas and deep geothermal, as we move towards a low-carbon economy.
This does not take away from our strong regulatory system, which provides a comprehensive and fit-for-purpose regime for exploratory activities. As has already been said, the UK has more than 50 years’ experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry to draw on. This is supported by an authoritative review of the scientific and engineering evidence on shale gas extraction conducted by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society in 2012. This concluded:
“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing … as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation”.
My department’s Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil will work closely with regulators, such as the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, and industry to ensure that regulation is robust enough to safeguard public safety and protect the environment, imposes no unnecessary burdens on operators and is as simple and easy to understand as possible. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, about the resourcing of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, they have both said that they have at this time enough resources to meet current demands. Of course, if the demand gets bigger, we will review the situation.
We have already put in place appropriate measures to address seismic issues. As rightly pointed out by my noble friend Lord Lawson, seismic risks measured previously have been very small. I want to assure all noble Lords that it is very much the will of this Government to ensure that we have a regulatory road map so that operators and citizens can see the overall process and how it applies to the different nations in the UK. It confirms the roles and responsibilities of all the different regulators. We have also looked for opportunities to simplify regulations and speed up processes, while continuing to maintain a robust system. For example, we are reducing permitting times for low-risk activity from 13 weeks to around four weeks. Already, all onshore oil and gas projects, including shale gas, are subject to scrutiny through the planning system, which addresses impacts on local residents such as traffic movements, noise, working hours and so on.
Planning guidance has been produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, making clear the planning and appeals processes for operators. It also encourages the planning authorities to engage with the regulator at an earlier stage, identify any issues and ensure that they are all involved at that earlier stage, rather than later, as has been the case in the past. The guidance also makes clear that operators can make all relevant required permit and planning applications in parallel.
In November 2012, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency published a “working together” agreement for shale gas sites, which specifies when and at what stages they will conduct joint inspections. It confirms that they together must be satisfied that wells are designed, constructed and operated to standards that protect safety and the environment. The Health and Safety Executive is also committed to visiting jointly with the Environment Agency all shale gas sites during the current exploratory phase of shale gas development.
The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil based in my department co-ordinates across Whitehall. We have a very close working relationship with all departments to ensure that the policy is well informed, coherent across government, alert to the risks and challenges and delivered in the right order at the right time. That is why we have not sought to set up a sub-Cabinet committee on this. It is being led at the front by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. They are fully supportive of it. We think that the work we are doing across government satisfies all the concerns and issues raised as we are making progress.
Planning permission underscores the need to engage the public. Noble Lords have rightly pointed out that by properly engaging we will gain support and take communities with us. That is why the Government believe that a social licence is key to operate, so we are ensuring that there is access to evidence-based information that can address any questions the public may have. We have a range of materials on the gov.uk website which help to explain the processes involved in shale gas operations to the public. We agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that proper public engagement is crucial.
All noble Lords have identified that the benefits that can be brought to communities are potentially huge. The communities that would benefit most are those where this potential has already been identified. We want to work actively with local communities. At their request, staff from my department regularly take part in events held by local councils and residents. We engage, address concerns that are raised and explain policy and regulation, and we bring along regulators and expert scientists so that we have proper public engagement. Events range from national events to local authority exhibitions and parish level. We engage at that level as well because we want to work with local communities and local authorities to ensure that concerns raised by some groups are addressed and the public are well informed about what will happen in their localities if exploration takes place there.
Viscount Ridley
I came across an important point. We often say that we have to win public trust before we can do this, but the best way of winning public trust turns out to be to drill a well. I was told this about Poland. People’s reaction is: is that all there is? Is that little box of tricks behind that hedge all that is needed?
Baroness Verma
I accept my noble friend’s comment but evidence has also shown that real engagement, right from the start of the process, explaining what will happen within those communities, how it will impact on those communities and the benefits that come with the exploration ensures that you have public opinion on side before anything has to take place. That evidence is perhaps slightly more informed than the example my noble friend gave.
We are working with the industry, and the industry has committed that it will include at exploration stages £100,000 in community benefits per well where fracturing takes place, and 1% of revenues from wells that go on to production will be paid to communities. That could be worth between £2.5 million and £10 million for a typically producing well. These are key benefits to local communities. Each operator will have to publish evidence of how it has met these commitments.
The industry is looking to present positively the case for shale gas developments. It has recently launched a campaign called Let’s Talk About Shale” which has been providing answers to public concerns on shale. Both the Government and the industry continue to work with the public to present the positive case for shale development. We cannot do enough. It has huge potential, but there are questions to be answered, so it is right that we engage thoroughly.
At this stage, I shall quickly touch on some points that were raised by noble Lords before I finish with my concluding remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about the independence of well examiners. They will be separate from and in addition to the Health and Safety Executive well inspectors. The well examiners will be employed by the company but, under health and safety legislation, the company will be responsible for the safety of its operations. The HSE has also undertaken that well inspectors will visit and inspect all shale sites during the exploratory phase.
I refute the opening remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who asserted that this Government have done nothing to respond to the massive underinvestment that the energy sector faces. I remind him that this underinvestment went on for many years while his party was in government. It knew that 20% of our energy supply would be coming offline by 2020. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we need to have a sensible debate about investment in the infrastructure to ensure that we do not face the massive underinvestment that we are seeing today. That inevitably puts costs on to consumer bills because we are having to catch up now; whereas we should have spent many years looking at how the ageing infrastructure needed to be upgraded as it was coming offline. Since we came into government, we have seen more than £40 billion-worth of infrastructure investment as well as the biggest reform of the electricity market through the Energy Act, which came into force in 2013.
The noble Lord asked if there would be an expert group set up to look at shale gas. A task force has been set up which will be independent of government. It will be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, the former chair of the Environment Agency, and it will provide impartial opinions on the impact that the exploitation of shale gas will have on the UK. The Government look forward to reading its report.
My noble friend Lord Shipley referred to the Bowland basin. The probable amount of gas in there is estimated at around 1,300 trillion cubic feet, so there is huge potential. We are at the exploratory stages. Noble Lords asked when we would see first drilling. We hope to see something happening in the new year. Other noble Lords asked about water contamination. My noble friend Lord Lawson and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the fact that drilling is so deep down—over 1,000 metres below groundwater—that the layers of rock in between stop gas and fracking fluids from escaping into the water. Any wastewater will be stored in closed metal tanks before being treated, in accordance with strict environmental regulations. This is common practice, as with other industrial processes, so we are sure that water contamination will not take place.
A lot of work has been done in preparation for this new industry. There is still much to be done. We look forward to further debates as to how we can take this huge potential forward. There are challenges ahead but we need to ensure that the public are informed with a proper, evidence-based debate. I hope this will be the start of it.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
My Lords, I thank all my colleagues for the very kind remarks they made about my chairmanship. I will say only that I found this a most rewarding experience. Both chairing that committee, and this debate tonight, demonstrate one of the great benefits and values of the House of Lords. We have come together from different backgrounds, had different experiences, have different areas of knowledge and come from different parties, but I suspect that those looking down on our debate and listening to it would not know which party we belonged to if they could not see where we sit. That is a reflection of the very real benefit that the House of Lords can give, as well as the very valuable experience we had from outside our committee. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Ridley for a very knowledgeable and splendid contribution to our debate. That is my first point: this shows the House of Lords at its best and has real value.
Secondly, I have to say to the Minister that when we got the response from the Government I felt that it was somewhat complacent. To a certain extent it argued, “We understand all these things; we are doing all that, and don’t worry”. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, described it as feeble. Whether it is complacent or feeble, that is still the impression that has been given to the House, and the impression out in the country. I absolutely accept everything the Minister has said about what the department is doing, but this needs real promotion. Of course the industry must do that, but the Government must do it in a much more forceful way, by getting across the benefits that shale gas could potentially give us. I suspect that that is not happening strongly enough at the moment, which is why we made the recommendation for a Cabinet sub-committee. I do not mind how it is done, but it has to be done much more forcefully across the board. If you go out and ask the general public what the contribution of shale gas to the UK could be, I am sure that they would not have a clue. However, they are aware of the problems in local communities. Therefore, there is a big job to do to put the case over, as well as all the policies to be made by government. That was one of the messages that came out of the debate tonight.
In conclusion, this has been a very useful debate. It is extremely important to keep pressing the case for shale so that the general public understand it. With those few remarks, I beg to move.